Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
PLoS One. 2009 Nov 13;4(11):e7753. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007753.
Poor methodological quality and reporting are known concerns with diagnostic accuracy studies. In 2003, the QUADAS tool and the STARD standards were published for evaluating the quality and improving the reporting of diagnostic studies, respectively. However, it is unclear whether these tools have been applied to diagnostic studies of infectious diseases. We performed a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic studies in TB, malaria and HIV.
We identified diagnostic accuracy studies of commercial tests for TB, malaria and HIV through a systematic search of the literature using PubMed and EMBASE (2004-2006). Original studies that reported sensitivity and specificity data were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics and diagnostic accuracy, and used QUADAS and STARD to evaluate the quality of methods and reporting, respectively.
Ninety (38%) of 238 articles met inclusion criteria. All studies had design deficiencies. Study quality indicators that were met in less than 25% of the studies included adequate description of withdrawals (6%) and reference test execution (10%), absence of index test review bias (19%) and reference test review bias (24%), and report of uninterpretable results (22%). In terms of quality of reporting, 9 STARD indicators were reported in less than 25% of the studies: methods for calculation and estimates of reproducibility (0%), adverse effects of the diagnostic tests (1%), estimates of diagnostic accuracy between subgroups (10%), distribution of severity of disease/other diagnoses (11%), number of eligible patients who did not participate in the study (14%), blinding of the test readers (16%), and description of the team executing the test and management of indeterminate/outlier results (both 17%). The use of STARD was not explicitly mentioned in any study. Only 22% of 46 journals that published the studies included in this review required authors to use STARD.
Recently published diagnostic accuracy studies on commercial tests for TB, malaria and HIV have moderate to low quality and are poorly reported. The more frequent use of tools such as QUADAS and STARD may be necessary to improve the methodological and reporting quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies in infectious diseases.
众所周知,诊断准确性研究存在方法学质量和报告质量差的问题。2003 年,QUADAS 工具和 STARD 标准分别用于评估诊断研究的质量和提高其报告质量。然而,尚不清楚这些工具是否已应用于传染病的诊断研究。我们对结核病、疟疾和 HIV 的商业检测的诊断准确性研究进行了系统评价。
我们通过对文献进行系统检索,使用 PubMed 和 EMBASE(2004-2006 年),确定了结核病、疟疾和 HIV 商业检测的诊断准确性研究。纳入了报告灵敏度和特异度数据的原始研究。两位评审员独立提取研究特征和诊断准确性数据,并分别使用 QUADAS 和 STARD 评估方法和报告质量。
90 篇(38%)238 篇文章符合纳入标准。所有研究均存在设计缺陷。不到 25%的研究满足以下研究质量指标:充分描述退出(6%)和参考检测执行情况(10%)、无索引检测审查偏倚(19%)和参考检测审查偏倚(24%),以及报告不可解释的结果(22%)。在报告质量方面,9 项 STARD 指标在不到 25%的研究中得到报告:计算和估计可重复性的方法(0%)、诊断试验的不良反应(1%)、亚组间诊断准确性的估计(10%)、疾病严重程度/其他诊断的分布(11%)、未参与研究的合格患者数量(14%)、检测者的盲法(16%),以及执行检测的团队描述和不确定/异常结果的处理(均为 17%)。没有研究明确提到 STARD 的使用。在发表本研究的 46 种期刊中,只有 22%要求作者使用 STARD。
最近发表的关于结核病、疟疾和 HIV 商业检测的诊断准确性研究的质量为中等到低,且报告质量较差。更频繁地使用 QUADAS 和 STARD 等工具可能有助于提高未来传染病诊断准确性研究的方法学和报告质量。