Estudio observacional: evaluación de la calidad metodológica de la investigación diagnóstica en España tras la publicación de la guía STARD

Verification bias in diagnostic accuracy studies for fine- and core needle biopsy of salivary gland lesions in otolaryngology journals: a systematic review and analysis

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies for needle biopsy are frequently published in otolaryngology journals, but this body of literature has not been assessed for verification bias.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of DTA studies on needle biopsy of salivary gland lesions appearing in otolaryngology journals. Studies were assessed by 2 reviewers for verification bias.

RESULTS

We identified 95 DTA studies for needle biopsy of salivary gland lesions. Eighty-one studies (84%) had verification bias. Five of the biased studies provided sufficient data to estimate the extent of bias. Verification bias was associated with an overestimate of sensitivity and an underestimate of specificity. Studies on core needle biopsy (CNB) had a lower rate of verification bias than fine-needle aspiration (FNA) studies.

CONCLUSION

Verification bias is common in DTA studies of needle biopsy for salivary gland lesions published in ear, nose, and throat (ENT) journals. Such studies overestimated sensitivity and underestimated specificity.

When health technologies do not reach their effectiveness potential: a health service research perspective

This paper tries to unravel the following question: why do we sometimes obtain results that are worse than expected despite having used technologies that are provenly efficacious or effective and having eliminated major groups of causes leading to poor performance? Inductive analysis and synthesis based on nine areas of health service research show that to effectively adopt some health technologies, it is not enough to simply choose an efficacious or effective change strategy. It sometimes becomes necessary to change the behavior of the health workers that will use it, and to modify certain environmental elements. Technology's effectiveness also depends on intervening simultaneously at various levels. Using a mix of evidence-based change (multifaceted) strategies is often mandatory. Improving health service calls for permanent, not sporadic, efforts; for ensuring universal access to information, and for adopting regulations to prevent poor or potentially harmful service delivery. A portion of the service improvements that have been attained have resulted from the use not of isolated change measures, but of combinations of the most effective measures as part of a single integrated intervention. To further reduce the gap between observed and expected effectiveness we should pilot behavior change strategies before adopting some health technologies, and to permanently install in our health system the multifactorial, integrated technology adoption mechanisms that we still lack. Failure to do this will mean being inefficient and pursuing short-term results at the expense of feasible and legitimate medium-term objectives.

The quality of reporting of primary test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology: application of the STARD criteria

Background

In obstetrics and gynaecology there has been a rapid growth in the development of new tests and primary studies of their accuracy. It is imperative that such studies are reported with transparency allowing the detection of any potential bias that may invalidate the results. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of reporting in diagnostic test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy - STARD checklist.

Methods

The included studies of ten systematic reviews were assessed for compliance with each of the reporting criteria. Using appropriate statistical tests we investigated whether there was an improvement in reporting quality since the introduction of the STARD checklist, whether a correlation existed between study sample size, country of origin of study and reporting quality.

Results

A total of 300 studies were included (195 for obstetrics, 105 for gynaecology). The overall reporting quality of included studies to the STARD criteria was poor. Obstetric studies reported adequately > 50% of the time for 62.1% (18/29) of the items while gynaecologic studies did the same 51.7% (15/29). There was a greater mean compliance with STARD criteria in the included obstetric studies than the gynaecological (p < 0.0001). There was a positive correlation, in both obstetrics (p < 0.0001) and gynaecology (p = 0.0123), between study sample size and reporting quality. No correlation between geographical area of publication and compliance with the reporting criteria could be demonstrated.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of papers in obstetrics and gynaecology is improving. This may be due to initiatives such as the STARD checklist as well as historical progress in awareness among authors of the need to accurately report studies. There is however considerable scope for further improvement.