SynthesisSystematic reviews2015
Small-study effects and time trends in diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of cannabis and subproducts on anthropometric measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Pooled it
- Small Study Effects in Diagnostic Imaging Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Trial
- A scoping review of health promotion interventions delivered via social media to women of reproductive age.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Small sample sizes in high-throughput miRNA screens: A common pitfall for the identification of miRNA biomarkers.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmall-study effects and time trends have been identified in meta-analyses of randomized trials. We evaluated whether these effects are also present in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
methodsA systematic search identified test accuracy meta-analyses published between May and September 2012. In each meta-analysis, the strength of the associations between estimated accuracy of the test (diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity) and sample size and between accuracy estimates and time since first publication were evaluated using meta-regression models. The regression coefficients over all meta-analyses were summarized using random effects meta-analysis.
resultsForty-six meta-analyses and their corresponding primary studies (N = 859) were included. There was a non-significant relative change in the DOR of 1.01 per 100 additional participants (95% CI 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.07). In the subgroup of imaging studies, there was a relative increase in sensitivity of 1.13 per 100 additional diseased subjects (95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; P = 0.002). The relative change in DOR with time since first publication was 0.94 per 5 years (95% CI 0.80 to 1.10; P = 0.42). Sensitivity was lower in studies published later (relative change 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; P = 0.04).
conclusionsSmall-study effects and time trends do not seem to be as pronounced in meta-analyses of test accuracy studies as they are in meta-analyses of randomized trials. Small-study effects seem to be reversed in imaging, where larger studies tend to report higher sensitivity.
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.