Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract

Doust, J. A., Pietrzak, E., Sanders, S. and Glasziou, P. P. (2005) Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58 5: 444-449. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.011


Author Doust, J. A.
Pietrzak, E.
Sanders, S.
Glasziou, P. P.
Title Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract
Journal name Journal of Clinical Epidemiology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0895-4356
1878-5921
Publication date 2005
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.011
Volume 58
Issue 5
Start page 444
End page 449
Total pages 6
Editor D. J. Knottnerus
P. Tugwell
Place of publication Philadelphia, PA, United States
Publisher Elsevier
Collection year 2005
Language eng
Subject 320100 Medicine - General
730305 Diagnostic methods
Formatted abstract
Background and Objectives:
Methods to identify studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy are less well developed than for reviews of intervention studies. This study assessed (1) the sensitivity and precision of five published search strategies and (2) the reliability and accuracy of reviewers screening the results of the search strategy.

Methods:
We compared the results of the search filters with the studies included in two systematic reviews, and assessed the interobserver reliability of two reviewers screening the list of articles generated by a search strategy.

Results:

In the first review, the search strategy published by van der Weijden had the greatest sensitivity, and in the second, four search strategies had 100% sensitivity. There was substantial agreement between two reviewers, but in the first review each reviewer working on their own would have missed one paper eligible for inclusion in the review. Ascertainment intersection techniques indicate that it is unlikely that further papers have been missed in the screening process.

Conclusion:
Published search strategies may miss papers for reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Papers are not easily identified as studies of diagnostic test accuracy, and the lack of information in the abstract makes it difficult to assess the eligibility for inclusion in a systematic review.
Keyword Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Systematic Reviews
Accuracy
Medline
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) - Collection
2006 Higher Education Research Data Collection
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 38 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 36 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 07:21:44 EST