Cargando…

Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management

OBJECTIVE: We adapted the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for studies of cervical cancer screening and management and used the adapted tool to evaluate the quality of studies included in a systematic review supporting the 2019 Risk-Based Management Consensus Guide...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clarke, Megan A., Darragh, Teresa M., Nelson, Erin, Unger, Elizabeth R., Zuna, Rosemary, Cremer, Miriam, Stockdale, Colleen K., Einstein, Mark H., Wentzensen, Nicolas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7141754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32243311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000527
_version_ 1783519258336034816
author Clarke, Megan A.
Darragh, Teresa M.
Nelson, Erin
Unger, Elizabeth R.
Zuna, Rosemary
Cremer, Miriam
Stockdale, Colleen K.
Einstein, Mark H.
Wentzensen, Nicolas
author_facet Clarke, Megan A.
Darragh, Teresa M.
Nelson, Erin
Unger, Elizabeth R.
Zuna, Rosemary
Cremer, Miriam
Stockdale, Colleen K.
Einstein, Mark H.
Wentzensen, Nicolas
author_sort Clarke, Megan A.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We adapted the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for studies of cervical cancer screening and management and used the adapted tool to evaluate the quality of studies included in a systematic review supporting the 2019 Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. METHODS: We evaluated the quality of all studies included in our systematic review for postcolposcopy (n = 5) and posttreatment (n = 23) surveillance using QUADAS-2 criteria. Subsequently, we adapted signaling questions to indications of cervical cancer screening and management. An iterative process was carried out to evaluate interrater agreement between 2 study authors (M.A.C. and N.W.). Discrepant ratings were discussed, and criteria were adapted accordingly. We also evaluated the influence of study quality on risk estimates and between study variation using stratified subgroup meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twelve signaling questions for bias assessment that were adapted to or newly developed for cervical cancer screening and management are described here. Interrater agreement on bias assessment increased from 70% to 83% during the adaptation process. Detailed assessment of bias and applicability showed that all studies on postcolposcopy management and 90% of studies on posttreatment management had high risk of bias in at least 1 domain. Most commonly, high risk of bias was observed for the patient selection domain, indicating the heterogeneity of study designs and clinical practice in reported studies. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted QUADAS-2 will have broad application for researchers, evidence evaluators, and journals who are interested in designing, conducting, evaluating, and publishing studies for cervical cancer screening and management.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7141754
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71417542020-04-24 Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Clarke, Megan A. Darragh, Teresa M. Nelson, Erin Unger, Elizabeth R. Zuna, Rosemary Cremer, Miriam Stockdale, Colleen K. Einstein, Mark H. Wentzensen, Nicolas J Low Genit Tract Dis Risk Based Guidelines OBJECTIVE: We adapted the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for studies of cervical cancer screening and management and used the adapted tool to evaluate the quality of studies included in a systematic review supporting the 2019 Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. METHODS: We evaluated the quality of all studies included in our systematic review for postcolposcopy (n = 5) and posttreatment (n = 23) surveillance using QUADAS-2 criteria. Subsequently, we adapted signaling questions to indications of cervical cancer screening and management. An iterative process was carried out to evaluate interrater agreement between 2 study authors (M.A.C. and N.W.). Discrepant ratings were discussed, and criteria were adapted accordingly. We also evaluated the influence of study quality on risk estimates and between study variation using stratified subgroup meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twelve signaling questions for bias assessment that were adapted to or newly developed for cervical cancer screening and management are described here. Interrater agreement on bias assessment increased from 70% to 83% during the adaptation process. Detailed assessment of bias and applicability showed that all studies on postcolposcopy management and 90% of studies on posttreatment management had high risk of bias in at least 1 domain. Most commonly, high risk of bias was observed for the patient selection domain, indicating the heterogeneity of study designs and clinical practice in reported studies. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted QUADAS-2 will have broad application for researchers, evidence evaluators, and journals who are interested in designing, conducting, evaluating, and publishing studies for cervical cancer screening and management. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7141754/ /pubmed/32243311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000527 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the ASCCP. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Risk Based Guidelines
Clarke, Megan A.
Darragh, Teresa M.
Nelson, Erin
Unger, Elizabeth R.
Zuna, Rosemary
Cremer, Miriam
Stockdale, Colleen K.
Einstein, Mark H.
Wentzensen, Nicolas
Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management
title Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management
title_full Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management
title_fullStr Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management
title_full_unstemmed Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management
title_short Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management
title_sort reporting and assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies for cervical cancer screening and management
topic Risk Based Guidelines
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7141754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32243311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000527
work_keys_str_mv AT clarkemegana reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement
AT darraghteresam reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement
AT nelsonerin reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement
AT ungerelizabethr reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement
AT zunarosemary reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement
AT cremermiriam reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement
AT stockdalecolleenk reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement
AT einsteinmarkh reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement
AT wentzensennicolas reportingandassessingthequalityofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesforcervicalcancerscreeningandmanagement