Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Nov;127:167-174. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.007. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
Comparative diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews (DTA reviews) assess the accuracy of two or more tests and compare their diagnostic performance. We investigated how comparative DTA reviews assessed the risk of bias (RoB) in primary studies that compared multiple index tests.
This is an overview of comparative DTA reviews indexed in MEDLINE from January 1st to December 31st, 2017. Two assessors independently identified DTA reviews including at least two index tests and containing at least one statement in which the accuracy of the index tests was compared. Two assessors independently extracted data on the methods used to assess RoB in studies that directly compared the accuracy of multiple index tests.
We included 238 comparative DTA reviews. Only two reviews (0.8%, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 3.0%) conducted RoB assessment of test comparisons undertaken in primary studies; neither used an RoB tool specifically designed to assess bias in test comparisons.
Assessment of RoB in test comparisons undertaken in primary studies was uncommon in comparative DTA reviews, possibly due to lack of existing guidance on and awareness of potential sources of bias. Based on our findings, guidance on how to assess and incorporate RoB in comparative DTA reviews is needed.
对比诊断测试准确性系统评价(DTA 评价)评估两种或多种测试的准确性,并比较其诊断性能。我们研究了比较 DTA 评价如何评估直接比较多种指标测试的原始研究中的偏倚风险(RoB)。
这是对 2017 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日在 MEDLINE 中索引的比较 DTA 评价的概述。两名评估员独立确定了包含至少两种指标测试和至少一条关于比较指标测试准确性的准确性的声明的 DTA 评价。两名评估员独立提取了关于直接比较多种指标测试准确性的研究中用于评估 RoB 的方法的数据。
我们纳入了 238 项比较 DTA 评价。只有两项评价(0.8%,95%置信区间 0.1 至 3.0%)对原始研究中进行的测试比较进行了 RoB 评估;均未使用专门用于评估测试比较偏差的 RoB 工具。
在比较 DTA 评价中,对原始研究中进行的测试比较进行 RoB 评估的情况并不常见,这可能是由于缺乏关于潜在偏差来源的现有指导和认识。基于我们的发现,需要关于如何在比较 DTA 评价中评估和纳入 RoB 的指导。