4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

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

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Annals of Internal Medicine
                Ann Intern Med
                American College of Physicians
                0003-4819
                1539-3704
                November 2021
                November 2021
                : 174
                : 11
                : 1592-1599
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (B.Y., M.M.L.)
                [2 ]UCL Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom (S.M.)
                [3 ]Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, and National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom (Y.T., C.F.D., J.J.D.)
                [4 ]Exeter Test Group, The Institute of Health Research, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom (C.J.H.)
                [5 ]Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom (P.F.W.).
                Article
                10.7326/M21-2234
                34698503
                d253a97d-763a-4d61-afb2-2a2adf30f1f7
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article