Cancer Treatment Reviews
Volume 31, Issue 8 , Pages 628-639 , December 2005

The challenge of systematic reviews of diagnostic and staging studies in cancer

  • Gary H. Lyman

      Affiliations

    • James P. Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, Rochester, NY 14642, United States
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 585 275 3335; fax: +1 585 276 1885.
    • ,
  • Benjamin Djulbegovic

      Affiliations

    • H Lee Moffitt Cancer Research and Treatment Center, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States

References 

  1. Lyman GH, Balducci L. The effect of changing disease risk on clinical reasoning. J Gen Int Med. 1994;9:488–495
  2. Lyman GH, Balducci L. Overestimation of Test Effects in Clinical Judgment. J Cancer Educat. 1993;8:297–307
  3. Etzioni RD, Connor RJ, Porok PC, Self SG. Design and analysis of cancer screening trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 1995;4:3–17
  4. Black WC, Haggstrom DA, Welch HG. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:167–173
  5. Baker SG, Kramer BS, Prorok PC. Statistical issues in randomized trials of cancer screening. BMC Med Res Method. 2002;2:1–7
  6. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Lyman GH. Linking evidence-based medicine therapeutic summary measures to clinical decision analysis. Medscape Gen Med. 2000;2:1–15Available from: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408028
  7. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. second ed.. Londo: Churchill Livingstone; 2000;
  8. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis CA, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667.76
  9. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytical methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:119.30
  10. Vamvakas EC. Meta.analyses of studies of diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of concepts and methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:675.86
  11. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In:  Egger M,  Davey Smith G,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in health care: meta.analysis in context. secon ed.. London: BMJ Books; 2001;
  12. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Brit Med J. 2001;323:157–162
  13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity. Brit Med J. 1994;308:1499
  14. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JHP, et al. Empirical evidence of design related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282:1061–1066
  15. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Method. 2003;3:1–13Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/3/25
  16. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glazious PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40–44
  17. Patz EF, Goodman PC, Bepler G. Screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1627–1633
  18. Lyman GH, Kim TY, Giuliano AE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2004;S77:[Abstract 2001]
  19. Kim T, Giuliano AE, Lyman GH. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node sampling in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer 2005 (in press).
  20. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale H, Luini A, Zurrida S, Galimberti V, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:546–553
  21. (a)Julian TB, Krag D, Brown A, et al. A randomized phase III clinical trial to compare sentinel node resection to conventional axillary dissection in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;88(supplement 19):[Abstract 140](b)Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American society of clinical oncology. Guideline Recommendations for sentinel lymph node bcopsyin early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1–18
  22. Mushlin AI, Kouides RW, Shapiro DE. Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:143–153
  23. Shen Y, Zelen M. Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3490–3499
  24. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?. Lancet. 2000;355:129–134
  25. Olsen O, Gotzsche OC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 2001;358:1340–1342
  26. Miettinen OS, Henschke CI, Pasmantier MW, et al. Mammograqphic screening: no reliable supporting evidence. Lancet. 2002;359:404–406Available from: http://image.thelancet.com/extras/1093web.pdf
  27. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomized trials. Lancet. 2002;359:909–919
  28. US Preventive Services Task Force: screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:344–346.
  29. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347–360
  30. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, Rietsma JB, Boussuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:1–12
  31. Goodman SN. The mammography dilemma: a crisis for evidence-based medicine?. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:363–365
  32. Feinstein AR, Horowitz RI. Problems in the “evidence” of “evidence-based medicine”. Am J Med. 1997;103:529–535
  33. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ. 2003;328:22–25

PII: S0305-7372(05)00129-5

doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2005.07.001

Cancer Treatment Reviews
Volume 31, Issue 8 , Pages 628-639 , December 2005

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution