Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Department of Health Science, University of Leicester, Leicester, England.
Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 26;9(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01530-3.
Robust diagnosis of dementia requires an understanding of the accuracy of the available diagnostic tests. Informant questionnaires are frequently used to assess for dementia in clinical practice. Recent systematic reviews have sought to establish the diagnostic test accuracy of various dementia informant screening tools. However, most reviews to date have focused on a single diagnostic tool and this does not address which tool is 'best'. A key aim of the overview of systematic reviews is to present a disparate evidence base in a single, easy to access platform.
We will conduct an overview of systematic reviews in which we 'review the systematic reviews' of diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating informant questionnaires for dementia. As an overview of systematic reviews of test accuracy is a relatively novel approach, we will use this review to explore methods for visual representation of complex data, for highlighting evidence gaps and for indirect comparative analyses. We will create a list of informant tools by consulting with dementia experts. We will search 6 databases (EMBASE (OVID); Health and Psychosocial Instruments (OVID); Medline (OVID); CINAHL (EBSCO); PSYCHinfo (EBSCO) and the PROSPERO registry of review protocols) to identify systematic reviews that describe the diagnostic test accuracy of informant questionnaires for dementia. We will assess review quality using the AMSTAR-2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) and assess reporting quality using PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies) checklists. We will collate the identified reviews to create an 'evidence map' that highlights where evidence does and does not exist in relation to informant questionnaires. We will pool sensitivity and specificity data via meta-analysis to generate a diagnostic test accuracy summary statistic for each informant questionnaire. If data allow, we will perform a statistical comparison of the diagnostic test accuracy of each informant questionnaire using a network approach.
Our overview of systematic reviews will provide a concise summary of the diagnostic test accuracy of informant tools and highlight areas where evidence is currently lacking in this regard. It will also apply network meta-analysis techniques to a new area.
要对痴呆症进行准确诊断，需要了解现有诊断测试的准确性。在临床实践中，常使用知情者问卷来评估痴呆症。最近的系统评价旨在确定各种痴呆症知情者筛查工具的诊断测试准确性。然而，迄今为止，大多数综述都集中在单一诊断工具上，而这并不能确定哪种工具是“最佳”的。本系统综述概述的主要目的是在一个单一、易于访问的平台上呈现一个分散的证据基础。
我们将对系统综述进行概述，其中我们将“综述”对评估痴呆症知情者问卷的诊断测试准确性研究的系统评价。由于系统综述概述是一种相对较新的方法，我们将使用本综述来探索复杂数据的视觉表示方法、突出证据差距以及间接比较分析的方法。我们将通过咨询痴呆症专家来创建一份知情者工具清单。我们将检索 6 个数据库（EMBASE（OVID）；健康和社会心理仪器（OVID）；Medline（OVID）；CINAHL（EBSCO）；PSYCHinfo（EBSCO）和 PROSPERO 综述方案注册处），以确定描述痴呆症知情者问卷的诊断测试准确性的系统评价。我们将使用 AMSTAR-2（多系统评价评估）评估综述质量，并使用 PRISMA-DTA（诊断测试准确性研究的系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目）清单评估报告质量。我们将对确定的综述进行整理，以创建一个“证据图谱”，突出显示在知情者问卷方面存在和不存在证据的地方。我们将通过荟萃分析汇总敏感性和特异性数据，为每个知情者问卷生成诊断测试准确性汇总统计数据。如果数据允许，我们将使用网络方法对每个知情者问卷的诊断测试准确性进行统计比较。
我们的系统综述概述将提供知情者工具诊断测试准确性的简明总结，并突出在这方面目前缺乏证据的领域。它还将应用网络荟萃分析技术到一个新领域。
