QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 17.81). 10/2011; 155(8):529-36. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
Source: PubMed


In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.

Download full-text


Available from: Marie Westwood, May 13, 2014
  • Source
    • "Discrepancies between the investigators on NOS scores were resolved by a third reviewer, through discussions with the two investigators. In addition, a validated tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy, known as the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS), was applied to assess the methodological quality of the selected studies [29] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated whether serum hs-CRP levels predict the efficacy of atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with atorvastatin. Bibliographic databases were exhaustively searched for studies relevant to the research topic. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria, combined with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS), were applied for study quality assessment. Our meta-analysis identified seven cohort studies (2006~2013), providing information on the change in serum hs-CRP levels in AF patients receiving atorvastatin therapy. After atorvastatin treatment, hs-CRP level in AF patients decreased significantly (SMD = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.58–1.47, P < 0.001 ). Subgroup analysis by country and hs-CRP detection methods suggested a negative relationship between atorvastatin treatment and hs-CRP levels among Chinese AF patients (SMD = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.00–1.69, P < 0.001 ) and by using ELISA method (SMD = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.51–1.71, P < 0.001 ), but not among Turkish population and using INA method (all P > 0.05 ). Egger’s test showed no publication bias ( P = 0.450 ). hs-CRP was clearly lowered in AF patients treated with atorvastatin, which may be helpful in the choice of statin agents for AF treatment. However, longer follow-ups are necessary to assess the clinical value of lowering hs-CRP in the clinical setting of AF treatment outcomes.
    08/2015; 2015(5):1-10. DOI:10.1155/2015/402481
  • Source
    • "This tool comprises of four domains, namely patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability [27] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several studies have implicated PAX1 epigenetic regulation in cervical neoplasia. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess PAX1 gene methylation as a potential biomarker in cervical cancer screening. A systematical search of all major databases was performed, in order to include all relevant publications in English until December 31(st) 2014. Studies with insufficient data, conducted in experimental models or associated with other comorbidities were excluded from the meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2(+)) versus normal, and CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3(+)) versus normal, were estimated using the bivariate model. Out of the 20 initially included studies, finally 7 (comprising of 1385 subjects with various stages of CIN and normal cervical pathology) met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity of CIN2(+) versus normal was estimated to be 0.66 (CI 95%, 0.46-0.81) and the specificity 0.92 (CI 95%, 0.88-0.95). On the other hand, the sensitivity of CIN3(+) versus normal was 0.77 (CI 95%, 0.58-0.89) and the specificity 0.92 (CI 95%, 0.88-0.94). Moreover, the area under the curve (AUC) in the former case was 0.923, and in the latter 0.931. The results of this meta-analysis support the utility of PAX1 methylation as an auxiliary biomarker in cervical cancer screening. PAX1 could be used effectively to increase the specificity of HPV DNA by detecting women with more advanced cervical abnormalities. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    07/2015; 39(5):682-686. DOI:10.1016/j.canep.2015.07.008
    • "There is strong consensus regarding the qualities of studies that offer the best evidence of screening accuracy. A rich literature (e.g., Jaeschke et al., 1994) and two detailed expert consensus statements , the STARD (Bossuyt et al., 2003) and the QUADAS-2 (Whiting et al., 2011), detail the criteria for conducting and reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. This 'gold standard' methodology prescribes comparison of screening results to 'gold standard' tests and structured interviews that are considered to be our best indices of psychopathology, typically yielding what we will hereafter refer to as the standard indices of diagnostic accuracy: "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The accuracy of any screening instrument designed to detect psychopathology among children is ideally assessed through rigorous comparison to 'gold standard' tests and interviews. Such comparisons typically yield estimates of what we refer to as 'standard indices of diagnostic accuracy', including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value. However, whereas these statistics were originally designed to detect binary signals (e.g., diagnosis present or absent), screening questionnaires commonly used in psychology, psychiatry, and pediatrics typically result in ordinal scores. Thus, a threshold or 'cut score' must be applied to these ordinal scores before accuracy can be evaluated using such standard indices. To better understand the tradeoffs inherent in choosing a particular threshold, we discuss the concept of 'threshold probability'. In contrast to PPV, which reflects the probability that a child whose score falls at or above the screening threshold has the condition of interest, threshold probability refers specifically to the likelihood that a child whose score is equal to a particular screening threshold has the condition of interest. The diagnostic accuracy and threshold probability of two well-validated behavioral assessment instruments, the Child Behavior Checklist Total Problem Scale and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire total scale were examined in relation to a structured psychiatric interview in three de-identified datasets. Although both screening measures were effective in identifying groups of children at elevated risk for psychopathology in all samples (odds ratios ranged from 5.2 to 9.7), children who scored at or near the clinical thresholds that optimized sensitivity and specificity were unlikely to meet criteria for psychopathology on gold standard interviews. Our results are consistent with the view that screening instruments should be interpreted probabilistically, with attention to where along the continuum of positive scores an individual falls. © 2015 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 06/2015; 56(9). DOI:10.1111/jcpp.12442 · 6.46 Impact Factor
Show more