Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 38, Issue 7


The Science of Systematic Reviewing Studies of Diagnostic Tests

Wytze P. Oosterhuis / René W.L.M Niessen / Patrick M. M.Bossuyt
Published Online: 2005-06-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2000.084


Background: Systematic reviews have gradually replaced single studies as the highest level of documented effectiveness of health care interventions. Systematic reviewing is a new scientific method, concerned with the development and application of methods for identifying relevant literature, analysing the material while increasing validity and precision, and presenting and discussing the results in a way that does justice to the research question and to the available evidence. The objective of this study was to review the systematic reviews in laboratory medicine, to evaluate the methods applied in these reviews and the applicability of guidelines of the Cochrane Methods Working Group on Screening and Diagnostic Tests, and identify areas for future research.

Methods: All the systematic reviews in the field of clinical chemistry and laboratory haematology that could be identified in Medline, EMBASE and other literature databases up to December 1998, were evaluated.

Results: We studied 23 reviews of diagnostic trials. Although all reviews share the same basic methodology, there was a wide variation in the methods applied. There was no consensus on the quality criteria for inclusion of primary studies. The results of the primary studies were heterogeneous in most cases. This was partly due to design flaws in the primary studies, but was also inherent in the diverse study designs in diagnostic trials. We observed differences in the analysis of the factors that cause heterogeneity of the results, and in the summary statistics used to pool the data from the primary studies. The additional diagnostic value of a test, after other test results are taken into consideration, was only addressed in one study.

Conclusion: This overview of 23 reviews of diagnostic trials identifies areas in the methods of systematic reviewing where consensus is lacking, such as quality rating of primary studies, analysis of heterogeneity between primary studies and pooling of data. Guidelines need to be improved on these points.

About the article

Published Online: 2005-06-01

Published in Print: 2000-07-11

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 577–588, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2000.084.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Mateus Azevedo Kinalski, Noeli Boscato, and Melissa Feres Damian
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 2019, Page 20190149
Geoffrey David Debelle, Sabine Maguire, Patrick Watts, Rosa Nieto Hernandez, and Alison Mary Kemp
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2018, Volume 103, Number 6, Page 606
Walter L Devillé, Frank Buntinx, Lex M Bouter, Victor M Montori, Henrica CW de Vet, Danielle AWM van der Windt, and P Dick Bezemer
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2002, Volume 2, Number 1
Daniel Caldeira, João Costa, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Fausto J. Pinto, and Joaquim J. Ferreira
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 2014, Volume 40, Number 3, Page 277
Ayman Yosry Abd El Rihim, Rabab Fouad Omar, Waleed Fathalah, Inas El Attar, Hanan Abdel Hafez, and Wesam Ibrahim
Arab Journal of Gastroenterology, 2013, Volume 14, Number 2, Page 44
Jayant A. Talwalkar, David M. Kurtz, Scott J. Schoenleber, Colin P. West, and Victor M. Montori
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2007, Volume 5, Number 10, Page 1214
Andrea Rita Horvath and Daniel Pewsner
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2004, Volume 342, Number 1-2, Page 23
B Aertgeerts, F Buntinx, and A Kester
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004, Volume 57, Number 1, Page 30
Petr Stern, Bedrich Friedecky, Vladimir Bartos, Drahomira Bezdickova, Jaroslava Vavrova, Jana Uhrova, Ladislava Rozprimova, Tomas Zima, and Vladimir Palicka
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2001, Volume 39, Number 12
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, 2008, Volume 51, Number 11, Page 1353
Sue E. Bayliss and Clare Davenport
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2008, Volume 24, Number 04, Page 403
P. Wille-Jørgensen and A. G. Renehan
Colorectal Disease, 2007, Volume 0, Number 0, Page 071116224139007
Joseph Watine and Nordine Bouarioua
Cancer, 2002, Volume 94, Number 10, Page 2793

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in