Abstract
BackgroundAssessment of diagnostic tests, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of a patient’s health status, has increasingly become a critical issue in health policy and decision-making. Diagnostic evidence, including the accuracy of a medical test for a target condition, is commonly appraised using standard systematic review methodology. Owing to the considerable time and resources required to conduct these, rapid reviews have emerged as a pragmatic alternative by tailoring methods according to the decision maker’s circumstances. However, it is not known if streamlining methodological aspects has an impact on the validity of evidence synthesis. Furthermore, due to the particular nature and complexity of the appraisal of diagnostic accuracy, there is need for detailed guidance on how to conduct rapid reviews of diagnostic tests. In this study, we aim to identify the methods currently used by rapid review developers to synthesize evidence on diagnostic test accuracy, as well as to analyze potential shortcomings and challenges related to these methods.MethodsWe will carry out a two-fold approach: (1) an international survey of professionals working in organizations that develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests, in terms of the methods and resources used by these agencies when conducting rapid reviews, and (2) semi-structured interviews with senior-level individuals to further explore and validate the findings from the survey and to identify challenges in conducting rapid reviews. We will use STATA 15.0 for quantitative analyses and framework analysis for qualitative analyses. We will ensure protection of data during all stages.DiscussionThe main result of this research will be a map of methods and resources currently used for conducting rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, as well as methodological shortcomings and potential solutions in diagnostic knowledge synthesis that require further research.
Highlights
Assessment of diagnostic tools, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of the current status of a patient’s health [1], has emerged as a critical issue in health policy and global decision-making [2]
Beese et al estimated that the probability of completing a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) review in 2 years was less than 10%, increasing to 33% in 4 years and to 58% in 8 years [10]
We will carry out a two-fold approach that includes an international survey of organizations developing diagnostic knowledge synthesis, and individual interviews with experts to identify shortcomings and challenges of the methodology used, as well as to suggest potential solutions for the future
Summary
Assessment of diagnostic tools, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of the current status of a patient’s health [1], has emerged as a critical issue in health policy and global decision-making [2] This rise has been mostly driven by the rapid technological developments of recent years, as well as a demand for the earlier identification of deleterious conditions, among other factors [2, 3]. Owing to the considerable time and resources required to conduct these, rapid reviews have emerged as a pragmatic alternative by tailoring methods according to the decision maker’s circumstances It is not known if streamlining methodological aspects has an impact on the validity of evidence synthesis. We aim to identify the methods currently used by rapid review developers to synthesize evidence on diagnostic test accuracy, as well as to analyze potential shortcomings and challenges related to these methods
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
