Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31093577›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2019

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation.

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez, Andrea C Tricco, Karen R Steingart, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, David Kaunelis, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Susan Baxter, Patrick M Bossuyt, Javier Zamora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ingrid Arevalo-RodriguezClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS), CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7326-4504
Andrea C Tricco2Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital. Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Karen R Steingart4Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit5Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
David Kaunelis6Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, Canada.
Pablo Alonso-CoelloIberoamerican Cochrane Center-Servicio de Epidemiología Clínica y Salud Pública, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB-Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.
Susan Baxter9School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Patrick M Bossuyt10Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Javier ZamoraClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS), CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment of diagnostic tests, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of a patient's health status, has increasingly become a critical issue in health policy and decision-making. Diagnostic evidence, including the accuracy of a medical test for a target condition, is commonly appraised using standard systematic review methodology. Owing to the considerable time and resources required to conduct these, rapid reviews have emerged as a pragmatic alternative by tailoring methods according to the decision maker's circumstances. However, it is not known if streamlining methodological aspects has an impact on the validity of evidence synthesis. Furthermore, due to the particular nature and complexity of the appraisal of diagnostic accuracy, there is need for detailed guidance on how to conduct rapid reviews of diagnostic tests. In this study, we aim to identify the methods currently used by rapid review developers to synthesize evidence on diagnostic test accuracy, as well as to analyze potential shortcomings and challenges related to these methods.

methodsWe will carry out a two-fold approach: (1) an international survey of professionals working in organizations that develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests, in terms of the methods and resources used by these agencies when conducting rapid reviews, and (2) semi-structured interviews with senior-level individuals to further explore and validate the findings from the survey and to identify challenges in conducting rapid reviews. We will use STATA 15.0 for quantitative analyses and framework analysis for qualitative analyses. We will ensure protection of data during all stages. DISCUSSION: The main result of this research will be a map of methods and resources currently used for conducting rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, as well as methodological shortcomings and potential solutions in diagnostic knowledge synthesis that require further research.

Indexed as

AccuracyDiagnostic testsKnowledge synthesisRapid reviews

Identifiers

PMID31093577
PMCPMC6460809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.