Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of ...
Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of ... Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of ...
Assessment of diagnostic and prognostic accuracyRepresentative spectrum?Acceptable reference standard?Acceptable delay between tests?Partial verification avoided?Differential verification avoided?Incorporation avoided?Reference standard results blinded?Index test results blinded?Amodio 2007 52 +++++++?Apple 2008 53 ++?+++++Apple 2008 54 ++++++++Apple 2009 55 ++++++––Bassan 2005 56 ++++++??Body 2011 57 ++++++–+Charpentier 2010 59 ++++++++Collinson 2006 62 +++++++?Collinson 2006 48 ++++++??Di Serio 2005 63 ??+?++??Ecollan 2007 64 ++++++??Garcia-Valdecasas 2011 49 ++?+++++Guo 2006 66 ++++++––Ilva 2009 50 ++++++??Keating 2006 70 ++++++++Keller 2009 20 +++++?++LeFevre 2007 72 ??++++++Liao 2009 74 +??++?––Mion 2007 77 –+++++??Reichlin 2009 19 ++++++++Rudolf 2010 81 ++++++??FIGURE 3 Quality assessment of diagnostic studies of TnI.28NIHR Journals Library
DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Technology Assessment 2013 Vol. 17 No. 1Representative spectrum?Acceptable reference standard?Acceptable delay between tests?Partial verification avoided?Differential verification avoided?Incorporation avoided?Reference standard results blinded?Index test results blinded?Body 2011 46 ++++++??Cete 2010 58 ++++++??Christ 2010 60 ++?+????Collinson 2006 62 +++++++?Haltern 2010 67 ++++++??Keller 2010 71 ++++++++Li 2010 73 ++++++++McCann 2008 76 +++++?++Naroo 2009 78 ++++++++Reichlin 2009 19 ++++++++Valle 2007 82 +?+++++?FIGURE 4 Quality assessment of diagnostic studies of TnT.Representative spectrum?Acceptable reference standard?Acceptable delay between tests?Partial verification avoided?Differential verification avoided?Incorporation avoided?Reference standard results blinded?Index test results blinded?Yes (high quality)UnclearNo (low quality)0% 25% 50% 75% 100%FIGURE 5 Methodological quality summary of diagnostic studies of TnI.© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2013. This work was produced by Goodacre et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of Statefor Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journalsprovided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should beaddressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton SciencePark, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.29
- Page 1: Health Technology AssessmentVOLUME
- Page 7: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
- Page 10 and 11: ContentsAppendix 5 Expected discoun
- Page 13 and 14: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
- Page 15 and 16: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
- Page 17 and 18: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
- Page 19: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
- Page 22 and 23: BackgroundTABLE 1 Hospital admissio
- Page 24 and 25: Background2. investigation of the c
- Page 26 and 27: BackgroundComputed tomographic coro
- Page 28 and 29: Research questionsiii. the diagnost
- Page 30 and 31: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 32 and 33: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 34 and 35: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 36 and 37: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 38 and 39: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 40 and 41: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 42 and 43: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 44 and 45: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 46 and 47: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 50 and 51: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 52 and 53: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 54 and 55: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 56 and 57: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 58 and 59: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 60 and 61: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 62 and 63: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 64 and 65: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 66 and 67: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 68 and 69: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 70 and 71: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 72 and 73: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 74 and 75: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 76 and 77: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 78 and 79: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 80 and 81: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 82 and 83: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 84 and 85: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 86 and 87: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 88 and 89: Assessment of diagnostic and progno
- Page 91 and 92: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
- Page 93 and 94: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
- Page 95 and 96: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
- Page 97 and 98: DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Techno
Assessment <strong>of</strong> diagnostic <strong>and</strong> prognostic accuracyRepresentative spectrum?Acceptable reference st<strong>and</strong>ard?Acceptable delay between tests?Partial verification avoided?Differential verification avoided?Incorporation avoided?Reference st<strong>and</strong>ard results blinded?Index test results blinded?Amodio 2007 52 +++++++?Apple 2008 53 ++?+++++Apple 2008 54 ++++++++Apple 2009 55 ++++++––Bassan 2005 56 ++++++??Body 2011 57 ++++++–+Charpentier 2010 59 ++++++++Collinson 2006 62 +++++++?Collinson 2006 48 ++++++??Di Serio 2005 63 ??+?++??Ecollan 2007 64 ++++++??Garcia-Valdecasas 2011 49 ++?+++++Guo 2006 66 ++++++––Ilva 2009 50 ++++++??Keating 2006 70 ++++++++Keller 2009 20 +++++?++LeFevre 2007 72 ??++++++Liao 2009 74 +??++?––Mion 2007 77 –+++++??Reichlin 2009 19 ++++++++Rudolf 2010 81 ++++++??FIGURE 3 Quality assessment <strong>of</strong> diagnostic studies <strong>of</strong> TnI.28NIHR Journals Library
Change language