Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYang, Bada
dc.contributor.authorMallett, Sue
dc.contributor.authorTakwoingi, Yemisi
dc.contributor.authorDavenport, Clare F
dc.contributor.authorHyde, Christopher J
dc.contributor.authorWhiting, Penny F
dc.contributor.authorDeeks, Jonathan J
dc.contributor.authorLeeflang, Mariska M G
dc.contributor.authorBossuyt, Patrick M M
dc.contributor.authorBrazzelli, Miriam G
dc.contributor.authorDinnes, Jacqueline
dc.contributor.authorGurusamy, Kurinchi S
dc.contributor.authorJones, Hayley E
dc.contributor.authorLange, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorLangendam, Miranda W
dc.contributor.authorMacaskill, Petra
dc.contributor.authorMcInnes, Matthew D F
dc.contributor.authorReitsma, Johannes B
dc.contributor.authorRutjes, Anne W S
dc.contributor.authorSinclair, Alison
dc.contributor.authorDe Vet, Henrica C W
dc.contributor.authorVirgili, Gianni
dc.contributor.authorWade, Ros
dc.contributor.authorWestwood, Marie E
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-04T12:44:06Z
dc.date.available2024-11-04T12:44:06Z
dc.date.issued2021-10-26
dc.identifier.citationYang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y, Davenport CF, Hyde CJ, Whiting PF, Deeks JJ, Leeflang MMG; QUADAS-C Group†; Bossuyt PMM, Brazzelli MG, Dinnes J, Gurusamy KS, Jones HE, Lange S, Langendam MW, Macaskill P, McInnes MDF, Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Sinclair A, de Vet HCW, Virgili G, Wade R, Westwood ME. QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2021 Nov;174(11):1592-1599. doi: 10.7326/M21-2234. Epub 2021 Oct 26en_US
dc.identifier.issn0003-4819
dc.identifier.eissn1539-3704
dc.identifier.doi10.7326/M21-2234
dc.identifier.pmid34698503
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14200/6333
dc.description.abstractComparative diagnostic test accuracy studies assess and compare the accuracy of 2 or more tests in the same study. Although these studies have the potential to yield reliable evidence regarding comparative accuracy, shortcomings in the design, conduct, and analysis may bias their results. The currently recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), is not designed for the assessment of test comparisons. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was developed as an extension of QUADAS-2 to assess the risk of bias in comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies. Through a 4-round Delphi study involving 24 international experts in test evaluation and a face-to-face consensus meeting, an initial version of the tool was developed that was revised and finalized following a pilot study among potential users. The QUADAS-C tool retains the same 4-domain structure of QUADAS-2 (Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference Standard, and Flow and Timing) and comprises additional questions to each QUADAS-2 domain. A risk-of-bias judgment for comparative accuracy requires a risk-of-bias judgment for the accuracy of each test (resulting from QUADAS-2) and additional criteria specific to test comparisons. Examples of such additional criteria include whether participants either received all index tests or were randomly assigned to index tests, and whether index tests were interpreted with blinding to the results of other index tests. The QUADAS-C tool will be useful for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy addressing comparative questions. Furthermore, researchers may use this tool to identify and avoid risk of bias when designing a comparative diagnostic test accuracy study.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAmerican College of Physiciansen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Internal Medicineen_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aimen_US
dc.subjectPractice of medicineen_US
dc.subjectHealth services. Managementen_US
dc.titleQUADAS-C: A Tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studiesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.source.journaltitleAnnals of Internal Medicineen_US
dc.source.volume174
dc.source.issue11
dc.source.beginpage1592
dc.source.endpage1599
dc.source.countryUnited Kingdom
dc.source.countryUnited Kingdom
dc.source.countryUnited States
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Amsterdam; University College London; University of Birmingham; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; University of Exeter; University of Bristolen_US
oa.grant.openaccessnaen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record