| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 From the Department of Ophthalmology, Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, United Kingdom, and 2 Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom.
PURPOSE. To draw attention to the importance of methodological standards when carrying out evaluations of ophthalmic diagnostic tests by reviewing the extent of compliance with these standards in reports of evaluations published within the ophthalmic literature.
METHODS. Twenty published evaluations of ophthalmic screening/diagnostic tests or technologies were independently assessed by two reviewers for compliance with the following methodological standards: specification of the spectrum composition for populations used in the evaluation, analysis of pertinent subgroups, avoidance of work-up (verification) bias, avoidance of review bias, presentation of precision of results for test accuracy, presentation of indeterminate test results, and presentation of test reproducibility.
RESULTS. Compliance ranged from just 10% (95% CI, 1%–32%) for presentation of test reproducibility data and avoidance of review bias to 70% (95% CI, 46%–88%) for avoidance of work-up bias and presentation of indeterminate test results. Only 5 of the 20 evaluations complied with four or more of the methodological standards and none with more than five of the standards.
CONCLUSIONS. The evaluations of ophthalmic diagnostic tests discussed in this article show limited compliance with accepted methodological standards but are no worse than previously described for evaluations published in general medical journals. Adherence to these standards by researchers can improve the study design and reporting of evaluations of new diagnostic techniques. Limited compliance, combined with a lack of awareness of the standards among users of research evidence, may lead to the inappropriate adoption of new diagnostic technologies, with a consequent waste of health care resources.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Ore, H. J Garzozi, A. Tamir, N. Stein, and M. Cohen-Dar Performance measures of the illiterate E-chart vision-screening test used in Northern District Israeli school children J Med Screen, June 1, 2008; 15(2): 65 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Bochmann, Z. Johnson, and A. Azuara-Blanco Sample size in studies on diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology: a literature survey Br. J. Ophthalmol., July 1, 2007; 91(7): 898 - 900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Shunmugam and A. Azuara-Blanco The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using the heidelberg retina tomograph. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2006; 47(6): 2317 - 2323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Y. Y. Lai, G. M. Leung, V. W. Y. Wong, R. F. Lam, A. C. O. Cheng, and D. S. C. Lam How Evidence-Based Are Publications in Clinical Ophthalmic Journals? Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2006; 47(5): 1831 - 1838. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. W.S. Rutjes, J. B. Reitsma, M. Di Nisio, N. Smidt, J. C. van Rijn, and P. M.M. Bossuyt Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 14, 2006; 174(4): 469 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Azuara-Blanco and J Burr The rising cost of glaucoma drugs Br. J. Ophthalmol., February 1, 2006; 90(2): 130 - 131. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B C Reeves Evidence about evidence Br. J. Ophthalmol., March 1, 2005; 89(3): 253 - 254. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M A R Siddiqui, A Azuara-Blanco, and J Burr The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals Br. J. Ophthalmol., March 1, 2005; 89(3): 261 - 265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Phipps, T. M. Dang, A. J. Vingrys, and R. H. Guymer Flicker Perimetry Losses in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2004; 45(9): 3355 - 3360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. Anderson and C. A. Johnson Anatomy of a Supergroup: Does a Criterion of Normal Perimetric Performance Generate a Supernormal Population? Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2003; 44(11): 5043 - 5048. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J-C Barry and H-H Konig Test characteristics of orthoptic screening examination in 3 year old kindergarten children Br. J. Ophthalmol., July 1, 2003; 87(7): 909 - 916. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J van der Meulen and J Rahi Clinical decision making in opthalmology Br. J. Ophthalmol., June 1, 2002; 86(6): 599 - 600. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. HARPER, D. HENSON, and B. C REEVES Appraising evaluations of screening/diagnostic tests: the importance of the study populations Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2000; 84(10): 1198 - 1202. [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
