Diagnostic test accuracy: methods for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Systematic reviews are carried out to provide an answer to a clinical question based on all available evidence (published and unpublished), to critically appraise the quality of studies, and account for and explain variations between the results of studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute specializes in providing methodological guidance for the conduct of systematic reviews and has developed methods and guidance for reviewers conducting systematic reviews of studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Diagnostic tests are used to identify the presence or absence of a condition for the purpose of developing an appropriate treatment plan. Owing to demands for improvements in speed, cost, ease of performance, patient safety, and accuracy, new diagnostic tests are continuously developed, and there are often several tests available for the diagnosis of a particular condition. In order to provide the evidence necessary for clinicians and other healthcare professionals to make informed decisions regarding the optimum test to use, primary studies need to be carried out on the accuracy of diagnostic tests and the results of these studies synthesized through systematic review. The Joanna Briggs Institute and its international collaboration have updated, revised, and developed new guidance for systematic reviews, including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. This methodological article summarizes that guidance and provides detailed advice on the effective conduct of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
1The Joanna Briggs Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 2Department of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, The Czech Republic (Middle European) Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care: An Affiliated Centre of The Joanna Briggs Institute, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic 3Bureau d'Echanges des Savoirs Pour des praTiques Exemplaires de Soins (BEST): An Affiliate Centre of The Joanna Briggs Institute, Lausanne, Switzerland 4Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Institute for the Study of Child Development, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA 5Center for Kliniske Retningslinjer, Institut for Medicin and Sundhedsteknologi, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark 6Northeast Institute for Evidence Synthesis and Translation, A Collaborating Center of the Joanna Briggs Institute, Division of Nursing Science, Rutgers School of Nursing 7Department of Quantitative Methods, Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Newark, New Jersey, USA 8Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Jared M
JM
Campbell
Miloslav
M
Klugar
Sandrine
S
Ding
Dennis P
DP
Carmody
Sasja J
SJ
Hakonsen
Yuri T
YT
Jadotte
Sarahlouise
S
White
Zachary
Z
Munn
D006801:Humans; D015982:Bias; D019937:Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures / Q000592:standards; D036262:Empirical Research; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000592:standards; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards; D012372:ROC Curve; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical; D000078202:Systematic Reviews as Topic