Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

Penny F. Whiting · Marie E Weswood · Anne WS Rutjes · Johannes B. Reitsma · Patrick M. Bossuyt · Jos Kleijnen

769 citations0/0 files storedBMC Medical Research Methodology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Epidemiology Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies, named QUADAS, has recently been developed. Although QUADAS has been used in several systematic reviews, it has not been formally validated. The objective was to evaluate the validity and usefulness of QUADAS. METHODS: Three reviewers independently rated the quality of 30 studies using QUADAS. We assessed the proportion of agreements between each reviewer and the final consensus rating. This was done for all QUADAS items combined and for each individual item. Twenty reviewers who had used QUADAS in their reviews completed a short structured questionnaire on their experience of QUADAS. RESULTS: Over all items, the agreements between each reviewer and the final consensus rating were 91%, 90% and 85%. The results for individual QUADAS items varied between 50% and 100% with a median value of 90%. Items related to uninterpretable test results and withdrawals led to the most disagreements. The feedback on the content of the tool was generally positive with only small numbers of reviewers reporting problems with coverage, ease of use, clarity of instructions and validity. CONCLUSION: Major modifications to the content of QUADAS itself are not necessary. The evaluation highlighted particular difficulties in scoring the items on uninterpretable results and withdrawals. Revised guidelines for scoring these items are proposed. It is essential that reviewers tailor guidelines for scoring items to their review, and ensure that all reviewers are clear on how to score studies. Reviewers should consider whether all QUADAS items are relevant to their review, and whether additional quality items should be assessed as part of their review.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 769 citations exist upstream.

References

2003The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews 2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative

Cited by

2016Screening for Depression in the General Population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis 2007Diagnostic accuracy of the mood module of the Patient Health Questionnaire: a systematic review 2020GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy 2010The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)2018Mental health monitoring with multimodal sensing and machine learning: A survey 2015Which instruments to support diagnosis of depression have sufficient accuracy? A systematic review 2009A Systematic Review of the Reliability of Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging for the Quantitative Assessment of the Abdominal and Lumbar Trunk Muscles 2013Understanding Sources of Bias in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.