Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Assessment 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 a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid, Tricco, Andrea C., Steingart, Karen R., Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Kaunelis, David, Alonso-Coello, Pablo, Baxter, Susan, Bossuyt, Patrick M., Zamora, Javier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460809/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0052-y
_version_ 1783410387017793536
author Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid
Tricco, Andrea C.
Steingart, Karen R.
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
Kaunelis, David
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Baxter, Susan
Bossuyt, Patrick M.
Zamora, Javier
author_facet Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid
Tricco, Andrea C.
Steingart, Karen R.
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
Kaunelis, David
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Baxter, Susan
Bossuyt, Patrick M.
Zamora, Javier
author_sort Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Assessment 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. METHODS: We 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6460809
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64608092019-05-15 Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid Tricco, Andrea C. Steingart, Karen R. Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara Kaunelis, David Alonso-Coello, Pablo Baxter, Susan Bossuyt, Patrick M. Zamora, Javier Diagn Progn Res Protocol BACKGROUND: Assessment 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. METHODS: We 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. BioMed Central 2019-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6460809/ /pubmed/31093577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0052-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Protocol
Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid
Tricco, Andrea C.
Steingart, Karen R.
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
Kaunelis, David
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Baxter, Susan
Bossuyt, Patrick M.
Zamora, Javier
Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation
title Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation
title_full Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation
title_fullStr Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation
title_full_unstemmed Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation
title_short Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation
title_sort challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460809/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0052-y
work_keys_str_mv AT arevalorodriguezingrid challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation
AT triccoandreac challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation
AT steingartkarenr challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation
AT nussbaumerstreitbarbara challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation
AT kaunelisdavid challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation
AT alonsocoellopablo challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation
AT baxtersusan challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation
AT bossuytpatrickm challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation
AT zamorajavier challengesofrapidreviewsfordiagnostictestaccuracyquestionsaprotocolforaninternationalsurveyandexpertconsultation