TOMAS-R: A template to identify and plan analysis for clinically important variation and multiplicity in diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.

Sue Mallett, Jacqueline Dinnes, Yemisi Takwoingi, Lavinia Ferrante de Ruffano
{"title":"TOMAS-R: A template to identify and plan analysis for clinically important variation and multiplicity in diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.","authors":"Sue Mallett, Jacqueline Dinnes, Yemisi Takwoingi, Lavinia Ferrante de Ruffano","doi":"10.1186/s41512-022-00131-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) provides guidance on important aspects of conducting a test accuracy systematic review. In this paper we present TOMAS-R (Template of Multiplicity and Analysis in Systematic Reviews), a structured template to use in conjunction with current Cochrane DTA guidance, to help identify complexities in the review question and to assist planning of data extraction and analysis when clinically important variation and multiplicity is present. Examples of clinically important variation and multiplicity could include differences in participants, index tests and test methods, target conditions and reference standards used to define them, study design and methodological quality. Our TOMAS-R template goes beyond the broad topic headings in current guidance that are sources of potential variation and multiplicity, by providing prompts for common sources of heterogeneity encountered from our experience of authoring over 100 reviews. We provide examples from two reviews to assist users. The TOMAS-R template adds value by supplementing available guidance for DTA reviews by providing a tool to facilitate discussions between methodologists, clinicians, statisticians and patient/public team members to identify the full breadth of review question complexities early in the process. The use of a structured set of prompting questions at the important stage of writing the protocol ensures clinical relevance as a main focus of the review, while allowing identification of key clinical components for data extraction and later analysis thereby facilitating a more efficient review process.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":" ","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9494799/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-022-00131-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) provides guidance on important aspects of conducting a test accuracy systematic review. In this paper we present TOMAS-R (Template of Multiplicity and Analysis in Systematic Reviews), a structured template to use in conjunction with current Cochrane DTA guidance, to help identify complexities in the review question and to assist planning of data extraction and analysis when clinically important variation and multiplicity is present. Examples of clinically important variation and multiplicity could include differences in participants, index tests and test methods, target conditions and reference standards used to define them, study design and methodological quality. Our TOMAS-R template goes beyond the broad topic headings in current guidance that are sources of potential variation and multiplicity, by providing prompts for common sources of heterogeneity encountered from our experience of authoring over 100 reviews. We provide examples from two reviews to assist users. The TOMAS-R template adds value by supplementing available guidance for DTA reviews by providing a tool to facilitate discussions between methodologists, clinicians, statisticians and patient/public team members to identify the full breadth of review question complexities early in the process. The use of a structured set of prompting questions at the important stage of writing the protocol ensures clinical relevance as a main focus of the review, while allowing identification of key clinical components for data extraction and later analysis thereby facilitating a more efficient review process.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
TOMAS-R:在诊断测试准确性系统综述中识别和规划临床重要变异和多重性分析的模板。
Cochrane 诊断测试准确性系统综述手册》(DTA)为开展测试准确性系统综述的重要方面提供了指导。在本文中,我们介绍了 TOMAS-R(系统综述中的多重性和分析模板),这是一个结构化模板,可与当前的 Cochrane DTA 指南结合使用,以帮助识别综述问题的复杂性,并在存在临床重要变异和多重性时协助规划数据提取和分析。临床重要变异和多重性的例子包括参与者、指标测试和测试方法、目标条件和用于定义目标条件的参考标准、研究设计和方法学质量的差异。我们的 TOMAS-R 模板超越了现行指南中作为潜在变异和多重性来源的宽泛主题标题,根据我们撰写 100 多篇综述的经验,提供了常见异质性来源的提示。我们提供了两篇综述的实例,以帮助用户。TOMAS-R模板提供了一种工具,可促进方法学专家、临床医生、统计学家和患者/公众团队成员之间的讨论,从而在流程早期识别审查问题的全部复杂性。在撰写方案的重要阶段使用一套结构化的提示性问题,可确保将临床相关性作为审查的主要重点,同时还能确定用于数据提取和后期分析的关键临床要素,从而促进更高效的审查过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Models for predicting risk of endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews reporting model development and validation methods. Rehabilitation outcomes after comprehensive post-acute inpatient rehabilitation following moderate to severe acquired brain injury-study protocol for an overall prognosis study based on routinely collected health data. Validation of prognostic models predicting mortality or ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: a global individual participant data meta-analysis. Reported prevalence and comparison of diagnostic approaches for Candida africana: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1