Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team (DTA ET) organises methodological peer review of DTA protocols and reviews. In the first part of this process, submitted protocols are sent for peer review by DTA statisticians, search specialists and clinical epidemiologists, and discussed by the DTA ET. Feedback to authors highlights methodological issues that need to be addressed before the review can proceed. Over 50 protocols have passed through this system, and patterns of common problems have emerged.
Objective: To review common errors in protocols for DTA reviews in order to develop a structured tool to assist: authors, Cochrane Review Groups, and reviewers in preparing and reviewing submitted reviews.
Methods: Areas of methodological weakness, considered important to the integrity of reviews of DTA, were identified by reviewing reports of peer reviewers and the DTA ET from the first submissions for a sample of 45 protocols. We reported on the nature and frequency of these problems, and produced a structured tool to help identify these problems, that links to the relevant DTA Handbook sections.
Results: Important areas of DTA review methodology were identified as: definition of the research question (particularly describing the alternative diagnostic pathways), choice of reference standard, design of the search strategy, quality assessment of the included studies and the statistical methods for meta-analysis. Work continues to further evaluate the comprehensiveness of protocol submissions against these criteria in the sample of 45 first protocol submissions.
Conclusions: This tool is likely to be helpful for both authors and DTA ET protocol assessors, making the DTA protocol development and assessment process more transparent, efficient and robust.
Objective: To review common errors in protocols for DTA reviews in order to develop a structured tool to assist: authors, Cochrane Review Groups, and reviewers in preparing and reviewing submitted reviews.
Methods: Areas of methodological weakness, considered important to the integrity of reviews of DTA, were identified by reviewing reports of peer reviewers and the DTA ET from the first submissions for a sample of 45 protocols. We reported on the nature and frequency of these problems, and produced a structured tool to help identify these problems, that links to the relevant DTA Handbook sections.
Results: Important areas of DTA review methodology were identified as: definition of the research question (particularly describing the alternative diagnostic pathways), choice of reference standard, design of the search strategy, quality assessment of the included studies and the statistical methods for meta-analysis. Work continues to further evaluate the comprehensiveness of protocol submissions against these criteria in the sample of 45 first protocol submissions.
Conclusions: This tool is likely to be helpful for both authors and DTA ET protocol assessors, making the DTA protocol development and assessment process more transparent, efficient and robust.