首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The BMJ >Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting
【2h】

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting

机译:癌症诊断测试的系统评价:方法和报告的综述

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Objectives To assess the methods and reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.>Data sources Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and five other databases identified reviews of tests used in patients with cancer. Of these, 89 satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting accuracy of the test compared with a reference test, including an electronic search, and published since 1990.>Review methods All reviews were assessed for methods and reporting of objectives, search strategy, participants, clinical setting, index and reference tests, study design, study results, graphs, meta-analysis, quality, bias, and procedures in the review. We assessed 25 randomly selected reviews in more detail.>Results 75% (67) of the reviews stated inclusion criteria, 49% (44) tabulated characteristics of included studies, 40% (36) reported details of study design, 17% (15) reported on the clinical setting, 17% (15) reported on the severity of disease in participants, and 49% (44) reported on whether the tumours were primary, metastatic, or recurrent. Of the 25 reviews assessed in detail, 68% (17) stated the reference standard used in the review, 36% (9) reported the definition of a positive result for the index test, and 56% (14) reported sensitivity, specificity, and sample sizes for individual studies. Of the 89 reviews, 61% (54) attempted to formally synthesise results of the studies and 32% (29) reported formal assessments of study quality.>Conclusions Reliability and relevance of current systematic reviews of diagnostic tests is compromised by poor reporting and review methods.
机译:>目的以评估诊断检查系统评价的方法和报告。>数据来源对Medline,Embase和其他五个数据库的系统搜索确定了癌症患者所用检查的评价。其中,有89项符合我们的报告报告准确性与包括电子检索在内的参考测试相比的纳入标准,并且自1990年以来就发布了。>审查方法所有评估均针对方法和目标报告进行了评估,搜索策略,参与者,临床设置,索引和参考测试,研究设计,研究结果,图表,荟萃分析,质量,偏倚和审查程序。我们对25个随机选择的评论进行了更详细的评估。>结果 75%(67)的评论列出了纳入标准,49%(44)列出了纳入研究的特征,40%(36)报告了研究细节在设计中,有17%(15)报告了临床情况,有17%(15)报告了参与者的疾病严重程度,有49%(44)报告了肿瘤是原发性,转移性还是复发性。在详细评估的25篇评论中,有68%(17)声明了评论中使用的参考标准,有36%(9)报告了指数测试阳性结果的定义,有56%(14)报告了敏感性,特异性,和个别研究的样本量。在89条评论中,有61%(54)试图正式综合研究结果,而32%(29)报告了对研究质量的正式评估。>结论当前对诊断测试的系统评价的可靠性和相关性是不良的报告和审核方法损害了安全性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号