Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20625481›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Methodological deficits in diagnostic research using '-omics' technologies: evaluation of the QUADOMICS tool and quality of recently published studies.

Lucy A Parker, Noemí Gómez Saez, Blanca Lumbreras, Miquel Porta, Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Metabolomic profiling in phenylketonuria: a systematic review of human studies.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lucy A ParkerDepartamento de Salud Pública, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain. lparker@umh.es
Noemí Gómez Saez
Blanca Lumbreras
Miquel Porta
Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQUADOMICS is an adaptation of QUADAS (a quality assessment tool for use in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies), which takes into account the particular challenges presented by '-omics' based technologies. Our primary objective was to evaluate the applicability and consistency of QUADOMICS. Subsequently we evaluated and describe the methodological quality of a sample of recently published studies using the tool. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findings45'-omics'-based diagnostic studies were identified by systematic search of Pubmed using suitable MeSH terms ("Genomics", "Sensitivity and specificity", "Diagnosis"). Three investigators independently assessed the quality of the articles using QUADOMICS and met to compare observations and generate a consensus. Consistency and applicability was assessed by comparing each reviewer's original rating with the consensus. Methodological quality was described using the consensus rating. Agreement was above 80% for all three reviewers. Four items presented difficulties with application, mostly due to the lack of a clearly defined gold standard. Methodological quality of our sample was poor; studies met roughly half of the applied criteria (mean +/- sd, 54.7+/-18.4%). Few studies were carried out in a population that mirrored the clinical situation in which the test would be used in practice, (6, 13.3%); none described patient recruitment sufficiently; and less than half described clinical and physiological factors that might influence the biomarker profile (20, 44.4%).

conclusionsThe QUADOMICS tool can consistently be applied to diagnostic '-omics' studies presently published in biomedical journals. A substantial proportion of reports in this research field fail to address design issues that are fundamental to make inferences relevant for patient care.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDiagnostic Techniques and ProceduresQuality ControlReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID20625481
PMCPMC2896422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.