4.4 Review

Should methodological filters for diagnostic test accuracy studies be used in systematic reviews of psychometric instruments? a case study involving screening for postnatal depression

期刊

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
卷 1, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-9

关键词

Diagnostic test accuracy; Systematic review; Methodological filters; Literature searching; MEDLINE; Psychometrics; Mental Health

资金

  1. Department of Health [05/39/06] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Challenges exist when searching for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies that include the design of DTA search strategies and selection of appropriate filters. This paper compares the performance of three MEDLINE search strategies for psychometric diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in postnatal depression. Methods: A reference set of six relevant studies was derived from a forward citation search via Web of Knowledge. The performance of the 'target condition and index test' method recommended by the Cochrane DTA Group was compared to two alternative strategies which included methodological filters. Outcome measures were total citations retrieved, sensitivity, precision and associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: The Cochrane recommended strategy and one of the filtered search strategies were equivalent in performance and both retrieved a total of 105 citations, sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 61%, 100%) and precision was 5.2% (2.6%, 11.9%). The second filtered search retrieved a total of 31 citations, sensitivity was 66.6% (30%, 90%) and precision was 12.9% (5.1%, 28.6%. This search missed the DTA study with most relevance to the DTA review. Conclusions: The Cochrane recommended search strategy, 'target condition and index test', method was pragmatic and sensitive. It was considered the optimum method for retrieval of relevant studies for a psychometric DTA review (in this case for postnatal depression). Potential limitations of using filtered searches during a psychometric mental health DTA review should be considered.

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。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据