Assessing the quality of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of tumor markers.
- Goebell PJ Urologische Klinik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen, Germany.
- Kamat AM Department of Urology, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
- Sylvester RJ EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
- Black P Department of Urology, Division of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
- Droller M Department of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.
- Godoy G Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
- Hudson MA Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Tom and Gayle Benson Cancer Center, New Orleans, LA.
- Junker K Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarland, Germany.
- Kassouf W Department of Surgery (Urology), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
- Knowles MA Section of Experimental Oncology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
- Schulz WA Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany.
- Seiler R Department of Urology, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
- Schmitz-Dräger BJ Schön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Fürth, Germany; Urologie 24, Nürnberg, Germany. Electronic address: bernd_sd@yahoo.de.
- 2014-08-28
Published in:
- Urologic oncology. - 2014
Diagnostic accuracy
IBCN classification
NOS
Oxford levels of evidence
QUADAS
STARD
Study quality
Biomarkers, Tumor
Humans
Research Design
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
English
OBJECTIVES
With rapidly increasing numbers of publications, assessments of study quality, reporting quality, and classification of studies according to their level of evidence or developmental stage have become key issues in weighing the relevance of new information reported. Diagnostic marker studies are often criticized for yielding highly discrepant and even controversial results. Much of this discrepancy has been attributed to differences in study quality. So far, numerous tools for measuring study quality have been developed, but few of them have been used for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This is owing to the fact that most tools are complicated and time consuming, suffer from poor reproducibility, and do not permit quantitative scoring.
METHODS
The International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) has adopted this problem and has systematically identified the more commonly used tools developed since 2000.
RESULTS
In this review, those tools addressing study quality (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), reporting quality (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy), and developmental stage (IBCN phases) of studies on diagnostic markers in bladder cancer are introduced and critically analyzed. Based upon this, the IBCN has launched an initiative to assess and validate existing tools with emphasis on diagnostic bladder cancer studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The development of simple and reproducible tools for quality assessment of diagnostic marker studies permitting quantitative scoring is suggested.
With rapidly increasing numbers of publications, assessments of study quality, reporting quality, and classification of studies according to their level of evidence or developmental stage have become key issues in weighing the relevance of new information reported. Diagnostic marker studies are often criticized for yielding highly discrepant and even controversial results. Much of this discrepancy has been attributed to differences in study quality. So far, numerous tools for measuring study quality have been developed, but few of them have been used for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This is owing to the fact that most tools are complicated and time consuming, suffer from poor reproducibility, and do not permit quantitative scoring.
METHODS
The International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) has adopted this problem and has systematically identified the more commonly used tools developed since 2000.
RESULTS
In this review, those tools addressing study quality (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), reporting quality (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy), and developmental stage (IBCN phases) of studies on diagnostic markers in bladder cancer are introduced and critically analyzed. Based upon this, the IBCN has launched an initiative to assess and validate existing tools with emphasis on diagnostic bladder cancer studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The development of simple and reproducible tools for quality assessment of diagnostic marker studies permitting quantitative scoring is suggested.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- green
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.003
- PMID 25159014
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/138910
Statistics
Document views: 45
File downloads:
- Full-text: 0