Advertisement

Updating Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews: Which, When, and How Should They Be Updated?

  • Ersilia Lucenteforte
  • Alessandra Bettiol
  • Salvatore De Masi
  • Gianni Virgili
Chapter

Abstract

Updating diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental in order to avoid making clinical decisions based on out-of-date and/or incomplete information. The decision of which SR to update should be based on the quality of the SR and on the currency of its topic. If SRs are considered worthy of updating, priority should first be established depending on the availability of elements of novelty (in terms of published studies, methodology, decisional approach, or standards of quality), as well as on the expected impact and value of information.

Before starting the updating process, a careful work plan is necessary, refreshing the state of the art, the aim, and the methods. Once the update has been performed, new findings and conclusions should be clearly displayed.

Keywords

Checklist Currency Novelty Value of information Refreshing 

References

  1. 1.
    Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:889–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matchar DB. Chapter 1: introduction to the methods guide for medical test reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:S4–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:850–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354:i3507.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev. 2014;3:54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  8. 8.
    Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJ. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care. Milbank Q. 1993;71:411–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, et al. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1208–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sagliocca L, De Masi S, Ferrigno L, Mele A, Traversa G. A pragmatic strategy for the review of clinical evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19:689–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shekelle P, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Woolf SH. When should clinical guidelines be updated? BMJ. 2001;323:155–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung M, Newberry SJ, Ansari MT, et al. Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:660–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:579.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson EC. A practical guide to value of information analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33:105–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newberry SJ, Shekelle PG, Vaiana M, Motala A. Reporting the findings of updated systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness: how do users want to view new information? Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001603.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leeflang MM, Debets-Ossenkopp YJ, Visser CE, et al. Galactomannan detection for invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD007394.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leeflang MM, Debets-Ossenkopp YJ, Wang J, et al. Galactomannan detection for invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD007394.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Virgili G, Menchini F, Murro V, Peluso E, Rosa F, Casazza G. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detection of macular oedema in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(7):CD008081.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Virgili G, Menchini F, Casazza G, et al. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detection of macular oedema in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1:CD008081.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Theron G, Peter J, Richardson M, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of the GenoType((R)) MTBDRsl assay for the detection of resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(10):CD010705.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Theron G, Peter J, Richardson M, Warren R, Dheda K, Steingart KR. GenoType(R) MTBDRsl assay for resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9:CD010705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Allen VB, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, Kalia A, Davidson BR. Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(11):CD009323.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Allen VB, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, Kalia A, Davidson BR. Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7:CD009323.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ersilia Lucenteforte
    • 1
  • Alessandra Bettiol
    • 2
  • Salvatore De Masi
    • 3
  • Gianni Virgili
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Clinical and Experimental MedicineUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA)University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Clinical Trial OfficeUniversity Hospital “Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Meyer”FlorenceItaly
  4. 4.Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine (DCMT)University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations