Application of GRADE in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Tests: A Case Analysis_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 YAOLiang ^1,2,3 ^# ,  CHENYao-long ^1,2,3 ^# , DULiang ⁴ , ZENGXian-tao ⁵ , WEIDang ^1,2,3 , WANGQi ^1,2,3 , WANGXiao-qin ^1,2,3 ,  YANGKe-hu ^1,2,3

1. Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China;
2. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
3. Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
4. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China;
5. Center for Evidence-based Medicine and Translational Research, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China;

Corresponding?author：

YANGKe-hu, Email: yangkh@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

GRADE; Grading evidence; Systematic review; Diagnostic accuracy test

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20140226

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

The approaches of rating the quality of evidence of systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests are different from systematic reviews of interventional studies. This article systematically introduces the application of GRADE in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests by a case interpretation and analysis. In this article we present rating workflow in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests and introduce how to use the GDT website to display the rating results, and interpret the conclusion of systematic reviews based on GRADE results.

Citation： YAOLiang, CHENYao-long, DULiang, ZENGXian-tao, WEIDang, WANGQi, WANGXiao-qin, YANGKe-hu. Application of GRADE in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Tests: A Case Analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2014, 14(11): 1407-1412. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20140226 Copy

1.	?Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR:a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7:10.
2.	曾憲濤, 黃偉, 田國祥. Meta分析系列之九:Meta分析的質量評價工具.中國循證心血管醫學雜志, 2013, 5(1):3-5.
3.	Yao L, Wei D, Wang Q, et al. The correlation analysis of PRISMA, AMSTAR and GRADE in systematic review. 21st Cochrane Colloquium, Abstract Book:61.
4.	陳耀龍, 姚亮, 杜亮, 等. GRADE在診斷準確性試驗系統評價中應用的原理、方法、挑戰及發展趨勢.中國循證醫學雜志, 2014, 14(11):.
5.	張曉光, 張小利, 帕麗達, 等.超聲造影對乳腺腫塊良惡性鑒別診斷價值的系統評價.中國循證醫學雜志, 2014, 14(1):79-84.
6.	Gordon H. Guyatt AD. Oxman, GV, et al. GRADE指南:Ⅳ.證據質量分級——研究的局限性(偏倚風險).中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(4):456-463.
7.	Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2:a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8):529-536.
8.	鄔蘭, 張永, 曾憲濤. QUADAS-2在診斷準確性研究的質量評價工具中的應用.湖北醫藥學院學報, 2013, 32(3):201-208.
9.	Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS:a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2003, 3:25.
10.	Oxman D. GRADE指南:Ⅷ.證據質量評價——間接性.中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 11(12):1452-1458.
11.	尤厚成, 劉健, 尤楠, 等.超聲造影對乳腺良惡性腫塊鑒別診斷的價值.中國普外基礎與臨床雜志, 2011, 18(8):861-865.
12.	迪麗努爾·買買提明, 尹科, 呂濤, 等.實時超聲造影對乳腺良、惡性腫瘤的鑒別診斷價值.新疆醫科大學學報, 2011, 34(8):847-849, 854.
13.	陳杰, 吳曉萍, 李旭霞, 等.超聲造影和彩色多普勒超聲聯合檢查乳腺腫塊的臨床價值.醫學影像學雜志, 2012, 22(2):286-287.
14.	趙紅佳, 董寶瑋, 許榮, 等.超聲造影定量分析在乳腺腫瘤診斷中的應用價值.中華乳腺病雜志(電子版), 2008, 2(6):634-640.
15.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE指南:Ⅶ.證據質量評價——不一致性.中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(12):1444-1451.
16.	Guyatt G, Oxman A D, Kunz R, et al. GRADE指南:Ⅵ.證據質量評價——不精確性(隨機誤差).中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(12):1435-1443.
17.	Flahault A, Cadilhac M, Thomas G. Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2005, 58(8):859-862.
18.	Guyatt G, Oxman A, Montori V, et al. GRADE指南:Ⅴ.證據質量評價——發表偏倚.中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(12):1430-1434.
19.	Van Enst WAl, Ochodo E, Scholten RJ, et al. Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy:a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14(1):70.
20.	Chen YL, Yao L, Wang Q, et al. Low scores on AMSTAR may lead to unreliable quality of evidence. 11^th G-I-N conference, 2014.
21.	陳耀龍, 姚亮, 杜亮, 等. GRADE在系統評價中應用的必要性及注意事項.中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(12):1401-1404.

1. ?Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR:a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7:10.
2. 曾憲濤, 黃偉, 田國祥. Meta分析系列之九:Meta分析的質量評價工具.中國循證心血管醫學雜志, 2013, 5(1):3-5.
3. Yao L, Wei D, Wang Q, et al. The correlation analysis of PRISMA, AMSTAR and GRADE in systematic review. 21st Cochrane Colloquium, Abstract Book:61.
4. 陳耀龍, 姚亮, 杜亮, 等. GRADE在診斷準確性試驗系統評價中應用的原理、方法、挑戰及發展趨勢.中國循證醫學雜志, 2014, 14(11):.
5. 張曉光, 張小利, 帕麗達, 等.超聲造影對乳腺腫塊良惡性鑒別診斷價值的系統評價.中國循證醫學雜志, 2014, 14(1):79-84.
6. Gordon H. Guyatt AD. Oxman, GV, et al. GRADE指南:Ⅳ.證據質量分級——研究的局限性(偏倚風險).中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(4):456-463.
7. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2:a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8):529-536.
8. 鄔蘭, 張永, 曾憲濤. QUADAS-2在診斷準確性研究的質量評價工具中的應用.湖北醫藥學院學報, 2013, 32(3):201-208.
9. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS:a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2003, 3:25.
10. Oxman D. GRADE指南:Ⅷ.證據質量評價——間接性.中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 11(12):1452-1458.
11. 尤厚成, 劉健, 尤楠, 等.超聲造影對乳腺良惡性腫塊鑒別診斷的價值.中國普外基礎與臨床雜志, 2011, 18(8):861-865.
12. 迪麗努爾·買買提明, 尹科, 呂濤, 等.實時超聲造影對乳腺良、惡性腫瘤的鑒別診斷價值.新疆醫科大學學報, 2011, 34(8):847-849, 854.
13. 陳杰, 吳曉萍, 李旭霞, 等.超聲造影和彩色多普勒超聲聯合檢查乳腺腫塊的臨床價值.醫學影像學雜志, 2012, 22(2):286-287.
14. 趙紅佳, 董寶瑋, 許榮, 等.超聲造影定量分析在乳腺腫瘤診斷中的應用價值.中華乳腺病雜志(電子版), 2008, 2(6):634-640.
15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE指南:Ⅶ.證據質量評價——不一致性.中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(12):1444-1451.
16. Guyatt G, Oxman A D, Kunz R, et al. GRADE指南:Ⅵ.證據質量評價——不精確性(隨機誤差).中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(12):1435-1443.
17. Flahault A, Cadilhac M, Thomas G. Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2005, 58(8):859-862.
18. Guyatt G, Oxman A, Montori V, et al. GRADE指南:Ⅴ.證據質量評價——發表偏倚.中國循證醫學雜志, 2011, 11(12):1430-1434.
19. Van Enst WAl, Ochodo E, Scholten RJ, et al. Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy:a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14(1):70.
20. Chen YL, Yao L, Wang Q, et al. Low scores on AMSTAR may lead to unreliable quality of evidence. 11^th G-I-N conference, 2014.
21. 陳耀龍, 姚亮, 杜亮, 等. GRADE在系統評價中應用的必要性及注意事項.中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(12):1401-1404.

Previous Article
Rationales, Methods, Challenges and Development Tendency of Using GRADE in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Tests

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Application of GRADE in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Tests: A Case Analysis

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content