Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 in journals with impact factor of at least 4 by using items of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement published later in 2003. MATERIALS AND METHODS: English-language articles on primary diagnostic accuracy studies in 2000 were identified with validated search strategy in MEDLINE. Articles published in journals with impact factor of 4 or higher that regularly publish articles on diagnostic accuracy were selected. Two independent reviewers evaluated quality of reporting by using STARD statement, which consists of 25 items and encourages use of a flow diagram. Total STARD score for each article was calculated by summing number of reported items. Subgroup analyses were performed for study design (case-control or cohort study) by using Student t tests for continuous outcomes and chi(2) tests for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Included were 124 articles published in 2000 in 12 journals: 33 case-control and 91 cohort studies. Only 41% of articles (51 of 124) reported on more than 50% of STARD items, while no articles reported on more than 80%. A flow chart was presented in two articles. Assessment of reporting on individual items of STARD statement revealed wide variation, with some items described in 11% of articles and others in 92%. Mean STARD score (0-25 points available) was 11.9 (range, 3.5-19.5). Mean difference in STARD score between cohort studies and case-control studies was 1.53 (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.82). CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 is less than optimal, even in journals with high impact factor. Authors, editors, and reviewers should pay more attention to reporting by checking STARD statement items and including a flow diagram to represent study design and patient flow. Supplemental material: radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2352040507/DC1 (c) RSNA, 200

Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach

Background: Minimally important changes (MIC) in scores help interpret results from health status instruments. Various distribution-based and anchor-based approaches have been proposed to assess MIC. Objectives: To describe and apply a visual method, called the anchor-based MIC distribution method, which integrates both approaches. Method: Using an anchor, patients are categorized as persons with an important improvement, an important deterioration, or without important change. For these three groups the distribution of the change scores on the health status instrument are depicted in a graph. We present two cut-off points for an MIC: the ROC cut-off point and the 95% limit cut-off point. Results: We illustrate our anchor-based MIC distribution method determining the MIC for the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with low back pain, using two conceivable definitions of minimal important change on the anchor. The graph shows the distribution of the scores of the health status instrument for the relevant categories on the anchor, and also the consequences of choosing the ROC cut-off point or the 95% limit cut-off point. Discussion: The anchor-based MIC distribution method provides a general framework, applicable to all kind of anchors. This method forces researchers to choose and justify their choice of an appropriate anchor and to define minimal importance on that anchor. The MIC is not an invariable characteristic of a measurement instrument, but may depend, among other things, on the perspective from which minimal importance is considered and the baseline values on the measurement instrument under study. A balance needs to be struck between the practicality of a single MIC value and the validity of a range of MIC values. © 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The general aim of our review is to provide information that may assist the clinician in making decisions about appropriate management in patients with low-back pain and leg pain suspected of having radicular pain and radiculopathy due to disc herniation. More specifically, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic performance of tests performed during physical examination in the identification of radicular pain and radiculopathy due to lumbar disc herniation in patients with low-back and leg pain. The secondary objective of this review is to assess the influence of sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of tests performed during physical examination, in particular the type of reference standard, health care setting, spectrum of disease, and study design

Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) Checklist

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The COSMIN checklist is a tool for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient-reported outcomes. The aim of this study is to determine the inter-rater agreement and reliability of each item score of the COSMIN checklist (n = 114).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>75 articles evaluating measurement properties were randomly selected from the bibliographic database compiled by the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Group, Oxford, UK. Raters were asked to assess the methodological quality of three articles, using the COSMIN checklist. In a one-way design, percentage agreement and intraclass kappa coefficients or quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients were calculated for each item.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>88 raters participated. Of the 75 selected articles, 26 articles were rated by four to six participants, and 49 by two or three participants. Overall, percentage agreement was appropriate (68% was above 80% agreement), and the kappa coefficients for the COSMIN items were low (61% was below 0.40, 6% was above 0.75). Reasons for low inter-rater agreement were need for subjective judgement, and accustom to different standards, terminology and definitions.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Results indicated that raters often choose the same response option, but that it is difficult on item level to distinguish between articles. When using the COSMIN checklist in a systematic review, we recommend getting some training and experience, completing it by two independent raters, and reaching consensus on one final rating. Instructions for using the checklist are improved.</p

What predicts change in pulmonary function and quality of life in asthma or COPD ?

Information about predictors of decline in pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FE

Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

Background: The COSMIN checklist is a standardized tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. It contains 9 boxes, each dealing with one measurement property, with 5-18 items per box about design aspects and statistical methods. Our aim was to develop a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist to calculate quality scores per measurement property when using the checklist in systematic reviews of measurement properties. Methods: The scoring system was developed based on discussions among experts and testing of the scoring system on 46 articles from a systematic review. Four response options were defined for each COSMIN item (excellent, good, fair, and poor). A quality score per measurement property is obtained by taking the lowest rating of any item in a box ("worst score counts"). Results: Specific criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor quality for each COSMIN item are described. In defining the criteria, the "worst score counts" algorithm was taken into consideration. This means that only fatal flaws were defined as poor quality. The scores of the 46 articles show how the scoring system can be used to provide an overview of the methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review of measurement properties. Conclusions: Based on experience in testing this scoring system on 46 articles, the COSMIN checklist with the proposed scoring system seems to be a useful tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews of measurement properties. © The Author(s) 2011

The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study

BACKGROUND: Aim of the COSMIN study (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was to develop a consensus-based checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. We present the COSMIN checklist and the agreement of the panel on the items of the checklist. METHODS: A four-round Delphi study was performed with international experts (psychologists, epidemiologists, statisticians and clinicians). Of the 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate (63%). Panel members were asked to rate their (dis)agreement with each proposal on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel members indicated 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on the inclusion of the following measurement properties: internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity (including face validity), construct validity (including structural validity, hypotheses testing and cross-cultural validity), criterion validity, responsiveness, and interpretability. The latter was not considered a measurement property. The panel also reached consensus on how these properties should be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting COSMIN checklist could be useful when selecting a measurement instrument, peer-reviewing a manuscript, designing or reporting a study on measurement properties, or for educational purposes.This study was financially supported by the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, and the Anna Foundation, Leiden, The Netherlands

European Guideline Robin Sequence An Initiative from the European Reference Network for Rare Craniofacial Anomalies and Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders (ERN-CRANIO)

A European guideline on Robin Sequence was developed within the European Reference Network for rare and/or complex craniofacial anomalies and ear, nose, and throat disorders. The guideline provides an overview of optimal care provisions for patients with Robin Sequence and recommendations for the improvement of care.</p

Randomized Clinical-Trial of Manipulative Therapy and Physiotherapy for Persistent Back and Neck Complaints - Results of One Year Follow-Up

Objective - To compare the effectiveness of manipulative therapy, physiotherapy, treatment by the general practitioner, and placebo therapy in patients with persistent non-specific back and neck complaints. Design - Randomised clinical trial. Setting-Primary health care in the Netherlands. Patients-256 patients with non-specific back and neck complaints of at least six weeks' duration who had not received physiotherapy or manipulative therapy in the past two years. Interventions - At the discretion of the manipulative therapists, physiotherapists, and general practitioners. Physiotherapy consisted of exercises, massage, and physical therapy (heat, electrotherapy, ultrasound, shortwave diathermy). Manipulative therapy consisted of manipulation and mobilisation of the spine. Treatment by general practitioners consisted of drugs (for example, analgesics), advice about posture, home exercises, and (bed)rest. Placebo treatment consisted of detuned shortwave diathermy (10 minutes) and detuned ultrasound (10 minutes). Main outcome measures - Changes in severity of the main complaint and limitation of physical functioning measured on 10 point scales by a blinded research assistant and global perceived effect measured on a 6 point scale by the patients. Results - Many patients in the general practitioner and placebo groups received other treatment during follow up. Improvement in the main complaint was larger with manipulative therapy (4·5) than with physiotherapy (3·8) after 12 months' follow up (difference 0·9; 95% confidence interval 0·1 to 1·7). Manipulative therapy also gave larger improvements in physical functioning (difference 0·6; -0·1 to 1·3). The global perceived effect after six and 12 months' follow up was similar for both treatments. Conclusions - Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment. Furthermore, manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months

Health-related and overall quality of life of patients with chronic hip and knee complaints in general practice

BACKGROUND: Information about quality of life of patients with chronic hip or knee complaints in general practice is scarce. This study describes the health-related and overall quality of life (HRQL) of these complaints. METHODS: Data were obtained from a cohort study in general practice. HRQL at three months follow-up was analysed. HRQL was measured as: symptoms, physical, psychological and social functioning, and general health perceptions, using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the MOS 36-item short-form-health survey (SF-36). Overall quality of life was measured using a 5-point rating scale. RESULTS: The results show that patients with chronic hip or knee complaints have a substantial lower HRQL compared to patients who had recovered from baseline hip or knee complaints. The largest effect was found on symptoms and physical functioning: up to 2.9 standard deviations below patients who had recovered from baseline hip or knee complaints. Scores of patients with both chronic hip and knee complaints were significantly worse than scores of patients with only knee complaints on most subscales. CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic hip or knee complaints the worst scores were seen on scales that measure symptoms and physical functioning, but still a substantially lower score was obtained for overall quality of life. Quality of life was poorer for patients with both chronic hip and knee complaints compared to those with chronic hip or knee complaints onl