Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Diagnostic Meta-Analysis pp 205–227Cite as

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1619 Accesses

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test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental in order to avoid making clinical decisions based on out-of-date and/or incomplete information.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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Matchar DB. Chapter 1: introduction to the methods guide for medical test reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:S4–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354:i3507.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJ. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care. Milbank Q. 1993;71:411–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shekelle P, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Woolf SH. When should clinical guidelines be updated? BMJ. 2001;323:155–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilson EC. A practical guide to value of information analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33:105–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Ersilia Lucenteforte

  2. Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Alessandra Bettiol

  3. Clinical Trial Office, University Hospital “Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Meyer”, Florence, Italy

    Salvatore De Masi

  4. Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine (DCMT), University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Gianni Virgili

Authors
  1. Ersilia Lucenteforte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandra Bettiol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Salvatore De Masi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianni Virgili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ersilia Lucenteforte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy

    Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lucenteforte, E., Bettiol, A., De Masi, S., Virgili, G. (2018). Updating Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews: Which, When, and How Should They Be Updated?. In: Biondi-Zoccai, G. (eds) Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78965-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78966-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation