Yao Xiaomei, Vella Emily, Brouwers Melissa
Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Surg Oncol. 2018 Mar;27(1):70-75. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Dec 6.
The methodological rigour of original studies on a diagnostic or prognostic research topic, and systematic reviews of these primary studies, varies; improving overall quality is warranted. This paper, the second of the series, outlines key concepts and essential steps required to conduct a high-quality systematic review on diagnostic topics. It is comprised of six aspects: clarifying the project objectives; generating an appropriate research question; searching the literature and selecting study criteria; assessing risk of bias of eligible studies, reporting and analyzing data, and interpreting data and making conclusions. This review emphasizes clarifying the role of the index test(s), including the "PIRO" components in a diagnostic research question, setting a hypothesis and threshold for an accurate test if needed, searching for existing systematic reviews, assessing the risk of bias for individual studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool, considering methodological heterogeneity before performing a meta-analysis, managing uninterpretable or inconclusive data, and assessing the overall quality of the aggregate evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We believe clinicians and health researchers would benefit from this methodological training.
关于诊断或预后研究主题的原始研究以及对这些原始研究的系统评价,其方法的严谨性各不相同;提高整体质量是有必要的。本文是该系列的第二篇,概述了就诊断主题开展高质量系统评价所需的关键概念和基本步骤。它包括六个方面:明确项目目标;提出恰当的研究问题;检索文献并选择研究标准;评估纳入研究的偏倚风险、报告和分析数据,以及解读数据并得出结论。本评价强调明确指标检验的作用,包括诊断研究问题中的“PIRO”要素,必要时设定准确检验的假设和阈值,检索现有的系统评价,使用诊断准确性研究质量评估(QUADAS)-2工具评估单个研究的偏倚风险,在进行荟萃分析之前考虑方法学异质性,处理无法解读或不确定的数据,以及使用推荐分级、评估、制定与评价(GRADE)方法评估汇总证据的整体质量。我们认为临床医生和健康研究人员将从这种方法学培训中受益。