Abstract

BackgroundRobust diagnosis of dementia requires an understanding of the accuracy of the available diagnostic tests. Informant questionnaires are frequently used to assess for dementia in clinical practice. Recent systematic reviews have sought to establish the diagnostic test accuracy of various dementia informant screening tools. However, most reviews to date have focused on a single diagnostic tool and this does not address which tool is ‘best’. A key aim of the overview of systematic reviews is to present a disparate evidence base in a single, easy to access platform.MethodsWe will conduct an overview of systematic reviews in which we ‘review the systematic reviews’ of diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating informant questionnaires for dementia. As an overview of systematic reviews of test accuracy is a relatively novel approach, we will use this review to explore methods for visual representation of complex data, for highlighting evidence gaps and for indirect comparative analyses. We will create a list of informant tools by consulting with dementia experts. We will search 6 databases (EMBASE (OVID); Health and Psychosocial Instruments (OVID); Medline (OVID); CINAHL (EBSCO); PSYCHinfo (EBSCO) and the PROSPERO registry of review protocols) to identify systematic reviews that describe the diagnostic test accuracy of informant questionnaires for dementia. We will assess review quality using the AMSTAR-2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) and assess reporting quality using PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies) checklists. We will collate the identified reviews to create an ‘evidence map’ that highlights where evidence does and does not exist in relation to informant questionnaires. We will pool sensitivity and specificity data via meta-analysis to generate a diagnostic test accuracy summary statistic for each informant questionnaire. If data allow, we will perform a statistical comparison of the diagnostic test accuracy of each informant questionnaire using a network approach.DiscussionOur overview of systematic reviews will provide a concise summary of the diagnostic test accuracy of informant tools and highlight areas where evidence is currently lacking in this regard. It will also apply network meta-analysis techniques to a new area.

Highlights

  • Robust diagnosis of dementia requires an understanding of the accuracy of the available diagnostic tests

  • Our overview of systematic reviews will provide a concise summary of the diagnostic test accuracy of informant tools and highlight areas where evidence is currently lacking in this regard

  • Aims and objectives Our over-arching aim is to produce an overview of systematic reviews that offers a synthesis of all systematic reviews of informant-based cognitive screening tools

Read more

Summary

Methods

Aims and objectives Our over-arching aim is to produce an overview of systematic reviews that offers a synthesis of all systematic reviews of informant-based cognitive screening tools. Process to identify relevant index tests We identified tools of interest for our overview of systematic reviews via a multi-stage process: a group consultation with experts who had extensive experience in the use of informant tools for assessing dementia/cognitive impairment, supplemented by scoping the literature online. The same two reviewers will evaluate the reporting standard of each review by utilising the PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies) checklist [47] When authors on this overview of systematic reviews are authors of an included review, they will not be involved in assessment of methodological or reporting quality of that review. We will employ a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) [51] approach to establish overall strength of evidence for the use of informant tools to screen for dementia, following recommended guidelines for applying GRADE to diagnostic tests [52]

Discussion
Background
44. Covidence systematic review software
Full Text
Published version (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