Preventive Veterinary Medicine
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
5 years ago

Methodology and preliminary results of a systematic literature review of ante-mortem and post-mortem diagnostic tests for bovine tuberculosis

A systematic review was conducted to identify studies with data for statistical meta-analyses of sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of ante-mortem and post-mortem diagnostic tests for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle. Members of a working group (WG) developed and tested search criteria and developed a standardised two-stage review process, to identify primary studies with numerator and denominator data for test performance and an agreed range of covariate data. No limits were applied to year, language, region or type of test in initial searches of electronic databases. In stage 1, titles and available abstracts were reviewed. References that complied with stage 1 selection criteria were reviewed in entirety and agreed data were extracted from references that complied with stage 2 selection criteria. At stage 1, 9,782 references were reviewed and 261 (2.6%) passed through to stage 2 where 215 English language references were each randomly allocated to two of 18 WG reviewers and 46 references in other languages were allocated to native speakers. Agreement regarding eligibility between reviewers of the same reference at stage 2 was moderate (Kappa statistic=0.51) and a resolution procedure was conducted. Only 119 references (published 1934-2009) were identified with eligible performance estimates for one or more of 14 different diagnostic test types; despite a comprehensive search strategy and the global impact of bTB. Searches of electronic databases for diagnostic test performance data were found to be nonspecific with regard to identifying references with diagnostic test Se or Sp data. Guidelines for the content of abstracts to research papers reporting diagnostic test performance are presented. The results of meta-analyses of the sensitivity and specificity of the tests, and of an evaluation of the methodological quality of the source references, are presented in accompanying papers (Nuñez-Garcia et al., 2017; Downs et al., 2017).

Publisher URL: www.sciencedirect.com/science

DOI: S0167587717300235

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.