Chapter 5: assessing risk of bias as a domain of quality in medical test studies
- PMID: 22648673
- PMCID: PMC3364359
- DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2030-8
Chapter 5: assessing risk of bias as a domain of quality in medical test studies
Abstract
Assessing methodological quality is a necessary activity for any systematic review, including those evaluating the evidence for studies of medical test performance. Judging the overall quality of an individual study involves examining the size of the study, the direction and degree of findings, the relevance of the study, and the risk of bias in the form of systematic error, internal validity, and other study limitations. In this chapter of the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews, we focus on the evaluation of risk of bias in the form of systematic error in an individual study as a distinctly important component of quality in studies of medical test performance, specifically in the context of estimating test performance (sensitivity and specificity). We make the following recommendations to systematic reviewers: 1) When assessing study limitations that are relevant to the test under evaluation, reviewers should select validated criteria that examine the risk of systematic error, 2) categorizing the risk of bias for individual studies as "low," "medium," or "high" is a useful way to proceed, and 3) methods for determining an overall categorization for the study limitations should be established a priori and documented clearly.
Similar articles
-
Assessing Risk of Bias as a Domain of Quality in Medical Test Studies.In: Chang SM, Matchar DB, Smetana GW, Umscheid CA, editors. Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. Chapter 5. In: Chang SM, Matchar DB, Smetana GW, Umscheid CA, editors. Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. Chapter 5. PMID: 22834026 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews.J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S4-10. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1798-2. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22648669 Free PMC article.
-
The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.J Evid Based Med. 2015 Feb;8(1):2-10. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12141. J Evid Based Med. 2015. PMID: 25594108 Review.
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Chapter 6: assessing applicability of medical test studies in systematic reviews.J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S39-46. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1961-9. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22648674 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Assessing Bias and Limitations of Clinical Validation Studies of Molecular Diagnostic Tests for Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Thyroid. 2022 Oct;32(10):1144-1157. doi: 10.1089/thy.2022.0269. Epub 2022 Sep 26. Thyroid. 2022. PMID: 35999710 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The Long-Term and Short-Term Efficacy of Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Front Immunol. 2022 May 25;13:875488. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.875488. eCollection 2022. Front Immunol. 2022. PMID: 35693805 Free PMC article.
-
Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Jul 11;17(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0380-y. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017. PMID: 28693497 Free PMC article.
-
Grading Evidence for Laboratory Test Studies Beyond Diagnostic Accuracy: Application to Prognostic Testing.EJIFCC. 2015 Aug 24;26(3):168-82. eCollection 2015 Aug. EJIFCC. 2015. PMID: 27683492 Free PMC article.
-
Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard".J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S56-66. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22648676 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-revi.... Accessed September 20, 2010.
-
- Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed September 19, 2011.
-
- Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, et al. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(3):189–202. - PubMed
-
- Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, et al. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(25):iii, 1-234. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
