4.5 Review

QUADOMICS: An adaptation of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Assessment (QUADAS) for the evaluation of the methodological quality of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of '-omics'-based technologies

Journal

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 41, Issue 16-17, Pages 1316-1325

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2008.06.018

Keywords

QUADAS; Genomics; Proteomics; Arrays; Diagnosis; Guidelines; Error; Variability

Funding

  1. Spanish Agency for Health Technology Assessment
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  3. CIBER en Epidemiologia y Salud Publica (CIBER-ESP), Spain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To adapt the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Assessment (QUADAS) to the particular methodological challenges posed by research on '-omics'-based diagnostic tests. Design and methods: We generated new guidelines by appraising the suitability of each criterion from QUADAS to '-omics'-based diagnostic research, and by adding new items that addressed specific sources of error. In addition, we defined four phases in the evaluation of a diagnostic test. Results: Twelve of the 14 criteria from QUADAS were retained in the new tool. The items relating to selection criteria and the description of the test were reformulated, and the criteria about external validation and the availability of clinical data were applied only in studies in the last research phase. Four new items were incorporated to QUADOMICS related to pre-analytical conditions and methods to avoid overfitting. Conclusions: QUADOMICS is an adaptation of QUADAS to the special nature of '-omics'-based diagnostic research. The tool adds new items that assess quality issues specific to this research, and may enhance the application of '-omics'-based discoveries to clinical \and public health practice. (C) 2008 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available