ArticleSystematic reviews2014
Impact of contacting study authors to obtain additional data for systematic reviews: diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatic fibrosis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 7 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cannabinoids to Improve Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Neurological or Oncological Disease: A Meta-Analysis.Cannabis and cannabinoid research · 2023Pooled it
- Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions for self-harm in children and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Becoming a parent: A systematic review and meta-analysis of changes in BMI, diet, and physical activity.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2020Pooled it
- Change in physical activity from adolescence to early adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies.British journal of sports medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Supplementary search methods versus bibliographic database searching to identify studies and study reports.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- A New Process Model of Study Identification Specific to the Identification of Randomised Studies for Systematic Reviews of Medical Interventions.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- β-Glucan Metabolic and Immunomodulatory Properties and Potential for Clinical Application.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Article
- Valproate for acute mania.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Review
- Evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors in a systematic review: a case study and worked example.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Contacting of authors by systematic reviewers: protocol for a cross-sectional study and a survey.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in endocrinology: an audit of methods, reporting, and performance.Endocrine · 2017Article
- Feasibility and effect of home-based therapy programmes for children with cerebral palsy: a protocol for a systematic review.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeventeen of 172 included studies in a recent systematic review of blood tests for hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis reported diagnostic accuracy results discordant from 2 × 2 tables, and 60 studies reported inadequate data to construct 2 × 2 tables. This study explores the yield of contacting authors of diagnostic accuracy studies and impact on the systematic review findings.
methodsSixty-six corresponding authors were sent letters requesting additional information or clarification of data from 77 studies. Data received from the authors were synthesized with data included in the previous review, and diagnostic accuracy sensitivities, specificities, and positive and likelihood ratios were recalculated.
resultsOf the 66 authors, 68% were successfully contacted and 42% provided additional data for 29 out of 77 studies (38%). All authors who provided data at all did so by the third emailed request (ten authors provided data after one request). Authors of more recent studies were more likely to be located and provide data compared to authors of older studies. The effects of requests for additional data on the conclusions regarding the utility of blood tests to identify patients with clinically significant fibrosis or cirrhosis were generally small for ten out of 12 tests. Additional data resulted in reclassification (using median likelihood ratio estimates) from less useful to moderately useful or vice versa for the remaining two blood tests and enabled the calculation of an estimate for a third blood test for which previously the data had been insufficient to do so. We did not identify a clear pattern for the directional impact of additional data on estimates of diagnostic accuracy.
conclusionsWe successfully contacted and received results from 42% of authors who provided data for 38% of included studies. Contacting authors of studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serum biomarkers for hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis in hepatitis C patients impacted conclusions regarding diagnostic utility for two blood tests and enabled the calculation of an estimate for a third blood test. Despite relatively extensive efforts, we were unable to obtain data to resolve discrepancies or complete 2 × 2 tables for 62% of studies.
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.