Diagnostic delay of sarcoidosis: protocol for an integrated systematic review

Protocol development

This study protocol has been developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews (8, 9).

Search strategy

The search strategy was developed to ensure reproducibility and increase transparency following the PRISMA-P checklist (8). Research questions and search terms were developed using the PICOS tool (Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcomes/Study Design) to ensure reliability and homogeneity of search results (10). The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022289830). A systematic search of peer reviewed literature will be conducted using PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and ProQuest databases, and searches of the grey literature will include Open Access Theses and Dissertation (https://oatd.org/), ProQuest Thesis and Dissertations and the National Library of Australia. Reference lists of selected studies and review articles will also be searched.

Search terms were developed in collaboration with research team members (**, **, **), and combined using Boolean operators “AND” and “OR”. A preliminary exploratory search on PUBMED/MEDLINE was conducted on 15^th October 2021 (Table 1) to inform the final search strategy and determine outcomes. This search strategy was updated and peer reviewed (**, **) using the PRESS checklist (11). The final search terms will include sarcoidosis AND (“delay in diagnosis” OR “diagnostic delay” OR “misdiagnosis” OR “time to diagnosis” OR “incorrect diagnosis” OR “missed diagnosis” OR “delayed diagnosis”) without restrictions on study type, date, and language. The literature search results will be imported to Covidence, an internet-based software that facilitates collaboration between reviewers and ensures independent review of the literature (12).

Study selection

Studies will be selected according to the pre-developed PICOS eligibility criteria outlined in Table 2. All study types (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) except review articles, examining diagnostic delay, incorrect diagnosis, missed diagnosis or slow diagnosis of all types of sarcoidosis will be included. We will also examine evidence of patients’ experiences associated with diagnostic delay. Given the nature of the study there will be no comparison group. No setting or publication date limitations will be applied. Only studies in English, German and Indonesian will be included.

As a first step, the title and abstract of the literature search results will be independently screened by two review authors (** and **), against the pre-developed inclusion criteria. Any conflicts will be discussed among the review team and resolved by a third reviewer (**).

Full texts will be sourced for all studies that meet the inclusion criteria or where there is any uncertainty. Two review authors (** and **) will then screen the full text documents according to the inclusion criteria, with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer (**). Exclusion rationales will be recorded.

Data extraction

Following completion of the study selection process, a data extraction tool will be designed, peer reviewed and piloted. In the piloting process, two reviewers (** and **) will independently extract data from the same five studies and compare their results to establish consensus and validity of the data extraction tool.

Data items to be extracted include:

1. Identification of the study (journal, authors, year, citation, research center/university/hospital/organisation, conflict of interest, funding/sponsorship),

2. Methods (study aim, study design, participant demographics, recruitment process, inclusion, exclusion criteria, statistical analysis),

3. Main findings (exposure details, diagnostic delays, causes and consequences of delay, patients’ experience, and other relevant outcomes).

In cases of missing information about diagnostic delay, when available, the date of symptom onset and date of diagnosis will be used to calculate diagnostic delay. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion, conflicts will be resolved by a third reviewer (**). Study authors will be contacted to resolve uncertainties about extracted data.

The primary outcome of the review is diagnostic delay time (time from symptom onset to correct diagnosis) in people living with sarcoidosis. Secondary outcomes include patients’ experiences, causes and consequences of diagnostic delay in sarcoidosis.

Quality appraisal

The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), will be used to appraise the quality of included studies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) (13). If the selected studies are only quantitative, an appropriate adapted version of Newcastle-Ottawa scale (14) will be used depending on the study types included. The chosen quality appraisal tool will be piloted by two independent review authors (** and **), on a randomly selected five samples with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer following discussion (**). An independent reviewer (**) will continue quality appraisal on the remaining studies.

Data synthesis and meta-analysis

A systematic narrative synthesis will be undertaken to explore the findings of included studies in relation to time from symptom onset to diagnosis, and people’s experiences related to delayed diagnosis in line with guidance from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (15).

A meta-analysis will also be conducted if extracted quantitative data are homogenous, using a random-effects model in conjunction with subgroup analyses, including pooled diagnostic delay data in each type of sarcoidosis. Extracted qualitative data will be meta-synthesized using meta-aggregation. Similarly, processed data (findings) from qualitative studies will be extracted and aggregated into a single set of categories, which will then be further aggregated and synthesised into a set of statements that may be useful to inform clinical practice.

Quality of evidence

The quality/certainty of evidence for all quantitative outcomes included in a meta-analysis will be judged using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology (16). The domains of risk of bias, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias will be used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence, which will be reported in four levels: high, moderate, low, and very low.

Amendments

If the protocol is amended prior to commencing the study, these amendments (date, explanation, and rationale) will be described in the final protocol. The record will be in tabular format as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration (8).