Evidence-based diagnosis

Making an accurate diagnosis is essential to ensure that a patient receives appropriate treatment and correct information regarding their prognosis. Characteristics of diagnostic tests are quantified in test accuracy studies, but many such studies have methodological flaws. The HSRC evidence-based diagnosis programme has focused on methods for systematic reviews of test accuracy studies, and the wider context in which tests are ordered and interpreted. We carried out a range of projects relating to literature searching, quality assessment, meta-analysis, presentation of results, and interactions between doctors and patients during the diagnostic process. We have shown that systematic reviews of test accuracy studies should search a range of databases and that current diagnostic filters do not have sufficient accuracy to be used in test accuracy reviews. Summary quality scores should not be used in test accuracy reviews; the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic Reviews (QUADAS) tool for assessing test accuracy studies is acceptable for quality assessment. We have shown that the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) and bivariate models for meta-analysis of test accuracy are statistically equivalent in many circumstances, and have developed an add-on module for the statistical software package Stata that enables these statistically rigorous models to be fitted by those without expert statistical knowledge. Three areas that would benefit from further research are literature searching, synthesis of results from individual patient data and presentation of results.

The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?

AIM To analyse meta-analyses included in systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) focusing on orthodontic literature and to assess the quality of the existing evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic searching was undertaken to identify SRs published in five major orthodontic journals and the CDSR between January 2000 and June 2014. Quality assessment of the overall body of evidence from meta-analyses was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE) tool. RESULTS One hundred and fifty-seven SRs were identified; meta-analysis was present in 43 of these (27.4 per cent). The highest proportion of SRs that included a meta-analysis was found in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (6/13; 46.1 per cent), followed by the CDSR (12/33; 36.4 per cent) and the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (15/44; 34.1 per cent). Class II treatment was the most commonly addressed topic within SRs in orthodontics (n = 18/157; 11.5 per cent). The number of trials combined to produce a summary estimate was small for most meta-analyses with a median of 4 (range: 2-52). Only 21 per cent (n = 9) of included meta-analyses were considered to have a high/moderate quality of evidence according to GRADE, while the majority were of low or very low quality (n = 34; 79.0 per cent). CONCLUSIONS Overall, approximately one quarter of orthodontic SRs included quantitative synthesis, with a median of four trials per meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence from the selected orthodontic SRs was predominantly low to very low indicating the relative lack of high quality of evidence from SRs to inform clinical practice guidelines.