The aim of this study is to perform a narrative review of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests accuracy. We undertook a search using The Cochrane Methodology Reviews (Cochrane Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy), Medline and LILACS up to October 2009. Reference lists of included studies were also hand searched. The following search strategy was constructed by using a combination of subject headings and text words: 1. Cochrane Methodology Reviews: accuracy study "Methodology" 2. In Pubmed "Meta-Analysis" [Publication Type] AND "Evidence-Based Medicine" [Mesh]) AND "Sensitivity and Specificity" [Mesh] 3. LILACS (revisao sistematica) or "literatura de REVISAO como assunto" [Descritor de assunto] and (sistematica) or "SISTEMATICA" [Descritor de assunto] and (acuracia) or "SENSIBILIDADE e especificidade" [Descritor de assunto]. In summary, the methodological planning and preparation of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions are prior to that used in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests accuracy. There are more sources of heterogeneity in design of diagnostic test studies, which impair the synthesis - meta-analysis - of the results. To work around this problem, there are currently uniform requirements for diagnostic test manuscripts submitted to leading biomedical journals.
Diagnosis; meta-analysis; review; review Literature as Topic