Goebell Peter J, Kamat Ashish M, Sylvester Richard J, Black Peter, Droller Michael, Godoy Guilherme, Hudson M'Liss A, Junker Kerstin, Kassouf Wassim, Knowles Margaret A, Schulz Wolfgang A, Seiler Roland, Schmitz-Dräger Bernd J
Urologische Klinik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen, Germany.
Department of Urology, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Urol Oncol. 2014 Oct;32(7):1051-60. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.003. Epub 2014 Aug 20.
With rapidly increasing numbers of publications, assessments of study quality, reporting quality, and classification of studies according to their level of evidence or developmental stage have become key issues in weighing the relevance of new information reported. Diagnostic marker studies are often criticized for yielding highly discrepant and even controversial results. Much of this discrepancy has been attributed to differences in study quality. So far, numerous tools for measuring study quality have been developed, but few of them have been used for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This is owing to the fact that most tools are complicated and time consuming, suffer from poor reproducibility, and do not permit quantitative scoring.
The International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) has adopted this problem and has systematically identified the more commonly used tools developed since 2000.
In this review, those tools addressing study quality (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), reporting quality (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy), and developmental stage (IBCN phases) of studies on diagnostic markers in bladder cancer are introduced and critically analyzed. Based upon this, the IBCN has launched an initiative to assess and validate existing tools with emphasis on diagnostic bladder cancer studies.
The development of simple and reproducible tools for quality assessment of diagnostic marker studies permitting quantitative scoring is suggested.
随着出版物数量的迅速增加，研究质量评估、报告质量评估以及根据证据水平或发展阶段对研究进行分类，已成为权衡所报告新信息相关性的关键问题。诊断标志物研究常常因产生高度不一致甚至有争议的结果而受到批评。这种差异很大程度上归因于研究质量的不同。到目前为止，已经开发了许多衡量研究质量的工具，但其中很少有用于系统评价和荟萃分析的。这是因为大多数工具复杂且耗时，再现性差，并且不允许进行定量评分。
国际膀胱癌网络（IBCN）已着手解决这一问题，并系统地识别了自2000年以来开发的更常用工具。
在本综述中，介绍并批判性分析了那些涉及膀胱癌诊断标志物研究的质量（诊断准确性研究的质量评估和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表）、报告质量（诊断准确性报告标准）和发展阶段（IBCN阶段）的工具。基于此，IBCN发起了一项倡议，以评估和验证现有工具，重点是膀胱癌诊断研究。
建议开发简单且可重复的工具，用于诊断标志物研究的质量评估，并允许进行定量评分。
