SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2011
The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Is stress different in infertile women and men? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Predictive value of computed tomography for short-term mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic value of seven biomarkers for breast cancer: an overview with evidence mapping and indirect comparisons of diagnostic test accuracy.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2020Pooled it
- The value of four imaging modalities in diagnosing lymph node involvement in rectal cancer: an overview and adjusted indirect comparison.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A review of methods and tools to assess the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments for preventing obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases.Implementation science : IS · 2016Pooled it
- Dust mite avoidance for the primary prevention of atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2015Pooled it
- Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis.British journal of cancer · 2012Guideline
- Comment on "An umbrella review of the diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing in infectious diseases": appealing results, but caution is still necessary.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide.Radiology · 2023Review
- Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials.BJS open · 2020Article
- Methods and reporting of systematic reviews of comparative accuracy were deficient: a methodological survey and proposed guidance.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2020Article
- Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2018Article
- Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.Research integrity and peer review · 2018Article
- Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Review
- Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Assessing abstracts of Iranian systematic reviews and metaanalysis indexed in WOS and Scopus using PRISMA.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver the last decade there have been a number of guidelines published, aimed at improving the quality of reporting in published studies and reviews. In systematic reviews this may be measured by their compliance with the PRISMA statement. This review aims to evaluate the quality of reporting in published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests, using the PRISMA statement and establish whether there has been a measurable improvement over time.
methodsEight databases were searched for reviews published prior to 31(st) December 2008. Studies were selected if they evaluated a diagnostic test, measured performance, searched two or more databases, stated the search terms and inclusion criteria, and used a statistical method to summarise a test's performance. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and items of the PRISMA statement. To measure the change in the quality of reporting over time, PRISMA items for two periods of equal duration were compared.
resultsCompliance with the PRISMA statement was generally poor: none of the reviews completely adhered to all 27 checklist items. Of the 236 meta-analyses included following selection: only 2(1%) reported the study protocol; 59(25%) reported the searches used; 76(32%) reported the results of a risk of bias assessment; and 82(35%) reported the abstract as a structured summary. Only 11 studies were published before 2000. Thus, the impact of QUOROM on the quality of reporting was not evaluated. However, the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 (covering 93% of studies) were compared using relative risks (RR). There was an increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on five PRISMA items: eligibility criteria (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.27); risk of bias across studies (methods) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.34 - 2.44); study selection results (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.09); results of individual studies (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.72); risk of bias across studies (results) (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20 - 2.25).
conclusionAlthough there has been an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic research, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting which future reviewers need to address if readers are to trust the validity of the reported findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.