Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27312228›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2016

Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication.

Daniël A Korevaar, Jérémie F Cohen, René Spijker, Ian J Saldanha, Kay Dickersin, Gianni Virgili, Lotty Hooft, Patrick M M Bossuyt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Daniël A KorevaarDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: d.a.korevaar@amc.uva.nl.
Jérémie F CohenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; INSERM U1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (EPOPé), Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, 53, avenue de l'Observatoire, 75014 Paris, France.
René SpijkerCochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, University Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands; Medical Library, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ian J SaldanhaDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Kay DickersinDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Gianni VirgiliDepartment of Translational Surgery and Medicine, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, largo Brambilla, 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Lotty HooftCochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, University Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Patrick M M BossuytDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness Research & the Cochrane Eyes & Vision GroupU01EY020522 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2010 to 2016
$9.2M
NEI NIH HHS U01 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Between May and July 2015, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify corresponding full-text publications; if needed, we contacted abstract authors. Cox regression was performed to estimate associations with full-text publication, where sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were logit transformed, and DOR was log transformed.

resultsA full-text publication was found for 226/399 (57%) included abstracts. There was no association between reported estimates of sensitivity and full-text publication (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.98, 1.22]). The same applied to specificity (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.88, 1.14]), AUC (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.75, 1.09]), and DOR (HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94, 1.09]).

conclusionAlmost half of the ARVO conference abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies did not reach full-text publication. Studies in abstracts that mentioned higher accuracy estimates were not more likely to be reported in a full-text publication.

Indexed as

OphthalmologyPeer Review, ResearchAbstracting and IndexingCongresses as TopicHumansPublication BiasReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityDiagnostic accuracy studiesMeta-analysesOphthalmologyPublication biasReporting biasSensitivity and specificitySystematic reviewsTime-lag bias

Identifiers

PMID27312228
PMCPMC5148658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.