Haresh Naringrekar, Andreu F Costa, Eric Lam, Christian B van der Pol, Mustafa R Bashir, Jean-Paul Salameh, Matthew D F McInnes
{"title":"Risk of Bias in Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Studies Using QUADAS-2.","authors":"Haresh Naringrekar, Andreu F Costa, Eric Lam, Christian B van der Pol, Mustafa R Bashir, Jean-Paul Salameh, Matthew D F McInnes","doi":"10.1177/08465371241280874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> Use a tailored version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool to evaluate risk of bias and applicability across LIRADS related publications. <b>Method:</b> A tailored QUADAS-2 tool was created through consensus approach to assess risk of bias and applicability across 37 LI-RADS related publications. Studies were selected from 2017 to 2022 using the assistance of experienced hospital librarians to search for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CT, MRI, or contrast-enhanced ultrasound for HCC using LI-RADS through multiple different databases. QUADAS-2 assessments were performed in duplicate and independently by 2 authors with experience using the QUADAS-2 tool. Disagreements were resolved with a third expert reviewer. Consensus QUADAS-2 assessments were tabulated for each domain. <b>Results:</b> Using the tailored QUADAS-2 tool, 31 of the 37 included LI-RADS studies were assessed as high risk of bias, and 9 out of 37 studies demonstrated concerns for applicability. Patient selection (21 out of 37 studies) and flow/timing (24 out of 37 studies) domains demonstrated the highest risk of bias. 6 out of 37 studies in the index domain demonstrated high risk of bias. 2 out of 37 studies showed high risk of bias in the reference standard domain. <b>Conclusion:</b> A significant proportion of LI-RADS research is at risk of bias with concerns for applicability. Identifying risk of bias in such research is essential to recognize limitations of a study that may affect the validity of the results. Areas for improvement in LI-RADS research include reducing selection bias, avoiding inappropriate exclusions, and decreasing verification bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":55290,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes","volume":" ","pages":"8465371241280874"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371241280874","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Use a tailored version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool to evaluate risk of bias and applicability across LIRADS related publications. Method: A tailored QUADAS-2 tool was created through consensus approach to assess risk of bias and applicability across 37 LI-RADS related publications. Studies were selected from 2017 to 2022 using the assistance of experienced hospital librarians to search for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CT, MRI, or contrast-enhanced ultrasound for HCC using LI-RADS through multiple different databases. QUADAS-2 assessments were performed in duplicate and independently by 2 authors with experience using the QUADAS-2 tool. Disagreements were resolved with a third expert reviewer. Consensus QUADAS-2 assessments were tabulated for each domain. Results: Using the tailored QUADAS-2 tool, 31 of the 37 included LI-RADS studies were assessed as high risk of bias, and 9 out of 37 studies demonstrated concerns for applicability. Patient selection (21 out of 37 studies) and flow/timing (24 out of 37 studies) domains demonstrated the highest risk of bias. 6 out of 37 studies in the index domain demonstrated high risk of bias. 2 out of 37 studies showed high risk of bias in the reference standard domain. Conclusion: A significant proportion of LI-RADS research is at risk of bias with concerns for applicability. Identifying risk of bias in such research is essential to recognize limitations of a study that may affect the validity of the results. Areas for improvement in LI-RADS research include reducing selection bias, avoiding inappropriate exclusions, and decreasing verification bias.
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal is a peer-reviewed, Medline-indexed publication that presents a broad scientific review of radiology in Canada. The Journal covers such topics as abdominal imaging, cardiovascular radiology, computed tomography, continuing professional development, education and training, gastrointestinal radiology, health policy and practice, magnetic resonance imaging, musculoskeletal radiology, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, pediatric radiology, radiology history, radiology practice guidelines and advisories, thoracic and cardiac imaging, trauma and emergency room imaging, ultrasonography, and vascular and interventional radiology. Article types considered for publication include original research articles, critically appraised topics, review articles, guest editorials, pictorial essays, technical notes, and letter to the Editor.