Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25239493›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2014

Impact of contacting study authors to obtain additional data for systematic reviews: diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatic fibrosis.

Shelley S Selph, Alexander D Ginsburg, Roger Chou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Interventions for self-harm in children and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. 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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Valproate for acute mania.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Shelley S SelphThe Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail Code: BICC, Portland, OR 97239, USA. selphs@ohsu.edu.
Alexander D Ginsburg
Roger Chou

Funding

PHS HHS HHSA 290-2012-00014I
6 · The paper itself

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

Electronic MailReview Literature as TopicAuthorshipBiomarkersCooperative BehaviorData CollectionHepatitis C, ChronicHumansLiver CirrhosisResearch ReportBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID25239493
PMCPMC4185334

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.