期刊
UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 1051-1060出版社
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.003
关键词
Diagnostic accuracy; Study quality; IBCN classification; Oxford levels of evidence; QUADAS; NOS; STARD
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. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据