Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36131330›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2022

TOMAS-R: A template to identify and plan analysis for clinically important variation and multiplicity in diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.

Sue Mallett, Jacqueline Dinnes, Yemisi Takwoingi, Lavinia Ferrante de Ruffano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Sue MallettUCL Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, W1W 7TY, UK. sue.mallett@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0596-8200
Jacqueline DinnesTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1343-7335
Yemisi TakwoingiTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5828-9746
Lavinia Ferrante de RuffanoTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2004-0638

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) provides guidance on important aspects of conducting a test accuracy systematic review. In this paper we present TOMAS-R (Template of Multiplicity and Analysis in Systematic Reviews), a structured template to use in conjunction with current Cochrane DTA guidance, to help identify complexities in the review question and to assist planning of data extraction and analysis when clinically important variation and multiplicity is present. Examples of clinically important variation and multiplicity could include differences in participants, index tests and test methods, target conditions and reference standards used to define them, study design and methodological quality. Our TOMAS-R template goes beyond the broad topic headings in current guidance that are sources of potential variation and multiplicity, by providing prompts for common sources of heterogeneity encountered from our experience of authoring over 100 reviews. We provide examples from two reviews to assist users. The TOMAS-R template adds value by supplementing available guidance for DTA reviews by providing a tool to facilitate discussions between methodologists, clinicians, statisticians and patient/public team members to identify the full breadth of review question complexities early in the process. The use of a structured set of prompting questions at the important stage of writing the protocol ensures clinical relevance as a main focus of the review, while allowing identification of key clinical components for data extraction and later analysis thereby facilitating a more efficient review process.

Indexed as

Diagnostic test accuracyforestHeterogeneityMeta-analysisMethodologyMultiplicitySROCSystematic reviewTemplate

Identifiers

PMID36131330
PMCPMC9494799

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.