56
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quality and Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in TB, HIV and Malaria: Evaluation Using QUADAS and STARD Standards

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Poor methodological quality and reporting are known concerns with diagnostic accuracy studies. In 2003, the QUADAS tool and the STARD standards were published for evaluating the quality and improving the reporting of diagnostic studies, respectively. However, it is unclear whether these tools have been applied to diagnostic studies of infectious diseases. We performed a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic studies in TB, malaria and HIV.

          Methods

          We identified diagnostic accuracy studies of commercial tests for TB, malaria and HIV through a systematic search of the literature using PubMed and EMBASE (2004–2006). Original studies that reported sensitivity and specificity data were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics and diagnostic accuracy, and used QUADAS and STARD to evaluate the quality of methods and reporting, respectively.

          Findings

          Ninety (38%) of 238 articles met inclusion criteria. All studies had design deficiencies. Study quality indicators that were met in less than 25% of the studies included adequate description of withdrawals (6%) and reference test execution (10%), absence of index test review bias (19%) and reference test review bias (24%), and report of uninterpretable results (22%). In terms of quality of reporting, 9 STARD indicators were reported in less than 25% of the studies: methods for calculation and estimates of reproducibility (0%), adverse effects of the diagnostic tests (1%), estimates of diagnostic accuracy between subgroups (10%), distribution of severity of disease/other diagnoses (11%), number of eligible patients who did not participate in the study (14%), blinding of the test readers (16%), and description of the team executing the test and management of indeterminate/outlier results (both 17%). The use of STARD was not explicitly mentioned in any study. Only 22% of 46 journals that published the studies included in this review required authors to use STARD.

          Conclusion

          Recently published diagnostic accuracy studies on commercial tests for TB, malaria and HIV have moderate to low quality and are poorly reported. The more frequent use of tools such as QUADAS and STARD may be necessary to improve the methodological and reporting quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies in infectious diseases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.

          To comprehend the results of diagnostic accuracy studies, readers must understand the design, conduct, analysis, and results of such studies. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalizability. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, methodologists and statisticians, and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. The search for published guidelines on diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. The consensus meeting shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.

            To determine the frequency and temporal changes in application of seven accepted methodological standards for the evaluation of diagnostic tests. A search of the MEDLINE database yielded 1302 articles about diagnostic test studies, during a 16-year secular interval, 1978 through 1993, in four prominent general medical journals. In the 112 eligible studies, the test was intended for clinical use, indexes of accuracy (sensitivity and specificity or likelihood ratios) were provided, and more than 10 patients were enrolled. Although each study was critically reviewed by one primary observer, a subset was independently evaluated for interrater consistency. The percentage of studies that fulfilled criteria for each of the seven methodological standards are as follows: (1) specify spectrum of evaluated patients, 27%; (2) report test indexes for clinical subgroups, 8%; (3) avoid workup bias, 46%; (4) avoid review bias, 38%; (5) provide numerical precision for test indexes, 11%; (6) report frequency and management of indeterminate results when calculating test indexes, 22%; and (7) specify test reproducibility, 23%. Secular increases were found for six of the seven standards in ranges of use from 14% to 31% during 1978-1981 to 1990-1993. Nevertheless, only one standard, avoidance of workup bias, was fulfilled by more than 50% of studies in the most recent secular interval. These results indicate that most diagnostic tests are still inadequately appraised. The routine demand for methodological standards could raise the quality of diagnostic test information, and the careful predissemination evaluation of diagnostic tests could eliminate useless tests before they receive widespread application.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Access to antimalarial therapy: accurate diagnosis is essential to achieving long term goals.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2009
                13 November 2009
                : 4
                : 11
                : e7753
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
                [3 ]Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [4 ]Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, Montreal, Canada
                University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
                Author notes

                Conceived and designed the experiments: ND AR MP. Performed the experiments: PF NPP. Analyzed the data: PF IS ND MP. Wrote the paper: PF NPP IS ND AR MP. Obtained funding: MP AR. Provided supervision: MP.

                Article
                09-PONE-RA-12393R1
                10.1371/journal.pone.0007753
                2771907
                19915664
                973cddfe-96b9-4bde-bc8d-5fb9b5580bcf
                Fontela et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 21 August 2009
                : 16 October 2009
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Categories
                Research Article
                Evidence-Based Healthcare
                Infectious Diseases
                Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making
                Evidence-Based Healthcare/Methods for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Studies

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article