Table 2 Incorporation of quality assessment in abstracts of diagnostic reviews
Approach | Overall quality of included studies | Number N = 65 | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
Quality mentioned in abstract | 28 (43% ) a | ||
Quality in methods | 21 (32%) | The quality of the studies was assessed using the guidelines published by the QUADAS (quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy, maximum score 14) [25]. | |
Quality in results | 12 (19%) | “The sensitivity analysis of 10 high quality studies (a score of > =4) showed a pooled sensitivity of 94% and pooled specificity of 0.95” [26] | |
“The quality of the included studies was poor to mediocre” [27]. | |||
Quality results considered in conclusion | 5 (8%) | α“The observed high sensitivity of the punch biopsy derived from all studies is probably the result of verification bias” [20]. | |
β“The quality of the studies investigating these tests is too low to provide a conclusive recommendation for the clinician” [23]. |