Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines

Walter L Devillé; Frank Buntinx; Lex M Bouter; Victor M Montori; Henrica C W de Vet; Danielle A W M van der Windt; P Dick Bezemer

Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines

Walter L Devillé, Frank Buntinx, Lex M Bouter, Victor M Montori, Henrica C W de Vet, Danielle A W M van der Windt, P Dick Bezemer

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for critical appraisal of diagnostic research and meta-analyses have already been published, these may be difficult to understand for clinical researchers or do not provide enough detailed information.

METHODS: Development of guidelines based on a systematic review of the evidence in reports of systematic searches of the literature for diagnostic research, of methodological criteria to evaluate diagnostic research, of methods for statistical pooling of data on diagnostic accuracy, and of methods for exploring heterogeneity.

RESULTS: Guidelines for conducting diagnostic systematic reviews are presented in a stepwise fashion and are followed by comments providing further information. Examples are given using the results of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of the urine dipstick in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections, and on the accuracy of the straight-leg-raising test in the diagnosis of intervertebral disc hernia.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	9
Journal	BMC Medical Research Methodology [E]
Volume	2
Publication status	Published - 3 Jul 2002

Keywords

Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures
Guidelines as Topic
Humans
MEDLINE
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Journal Article

Cite this

@article{e3f2158be076414485c2bad8f59b8392,

title = "Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for critical appraisal of diagnostic research and meta-analyses have already been published, these may be difficult to understand for clinical researchers or do not provide enough detailed information.METHODS: Development of guidelines based on a systematic review of the evidence in reports of systematic searches of the literature for diagnostic research, of methodological criteria to evaluate diagnostic research, of methods for statistical pooling of data on diagnostic accuracy, and of methods for exploring heterogeneity.RESULTS: Guidelines for conducting diagnostic systematic reviews are presented in a stepwise fashion and are followed by comments providing further information. Examples are given using the results of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of the urine dipstick in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections, and on the accuracy of the straight-leg-raising test in the diagnosis of intervertebral disc hernia.",

keywords = "Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures, Guidelines as Topic, Humans, MEDLINE, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Journal Article",

author = "Devill{\'e}, {Walter L} and Frank Buntinx and Bouter, {Lex M} and Montori, {Victor M} and {de Vet}, {Henrica C W} and {van der Windt}, {Danielle A W M} and Bezemer, {P Dick}",

year = "2002",

month = jul,

day = "3",

language = "English",

volume = "2",

pages = "9",

journal = "BMC Medical Research Methodology [E]",

issn = "1471-2288",

publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies

T2 - didactic guidelines

AU - Devillé, Walter L

AU - Buntinx, Frank

AU - Bouter, Lex M

AU - Montori, Victor M

AU - de Vet, Henrica C W

AU - van der Windt, Danielle A W M

AU - Bezemer, P Dick

PY - 2002/7/3

Y1 - 2002/7/3

N2 - BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for critical appraisal of diagnostic research and meta-analyses have already been published, these may be difficult to understand for clinical researchers or do not provide enough detailed information.METHODS: Development of guidelines based on a systematic review of the evidence in reports of systematic searches of the literature for diagnostic research, of methodological criteria to evaluate diagnostic research, of methods for statistical pooling of data on diagnostic accuracy, and of methods for exploring heterogeneity.RESULTS: Guidelines for conducting diagnostic systematic reviews are presented in a stepwise fashion and are followed by comments providing further information. Examples are given using the results of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of the urine dipstick in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections, and on the accuracy of the straight-leg-raising test in the diagnosis of intervertebral disc hernia.

AB - BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for critical appraisal of diagnostic research and meta-analyses have already been published, these may be difficult to understand for clinical researchers or do not provide enough detailed information.METHODS: Development of guidelines based on a systematic review of the evidence in reports of systematic searches of the literature for diagnostic research, of methodological criteria to evaluate diagnostic research, of methods for statistical pooling of data on diagnostic accuracy, and of methods for exploring heterogeneity.RESULTS: Guidelines for conducting diagnostic systematic reviews are presented in a stepwise fashion and are followed by comments providing further information. Examples are given using the results of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of the urine dipstick in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections, and on the accuracy of the straight-leg-raising test in the diagnosis of intervertebral disc hernia.

KW - Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures

KW - Guidelines as Topic

KW - Humans

KW - MEDLINE

KW - Meta-Analysis as Topic

KW - Journal Article

M3 - Article

C2 - 12097142

SN - 1471-2288

VL - 2

SP - 9

JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology [E]

JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology [E]

ER -

Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines

Abstract

Keywords

Fingerprint

Cite this