ArticleEndocrine2017
Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in endocrinology: an audit of methods, reporting, and performance.
Article in Endocrine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Future of Thyroid Nodule Risk Stratification.Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America · 2022Review
- A deeper analysis in thyroid research: A meta-epidemiological study of the American Thyroid Association clinical guidelines.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews provide clinicians and policymakers estimates of diagnostic test accuracy and their usefulness in clinical practice. We identified all available systematic reviews of diagnosis in endocrinology, summarized the diagnostic accuracy of the tests included, and assessed the credibility and clinical usefulness of the methods and reporting.
methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to December 2015 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting accuracy measures of diagnostic tests in endocrinology. Experienced reviewers independently screened for eligible studies and collected data. We summarized the results, methods, and reporting of the reviews. We performed subgroup analyses to categorize diagnostic tests as most useful based on their accuracy.
resultsWe identified 84 systematic reviews; half of the tests included were classified as helpful when positive, one-fourth as helpful when negative. Most authors adequately reported how studies were identified and selected and how their trustworthiness (risk of bias) was judged. Only one in three reviews, however, reported an overall judgment about trustworthiness and one in five reported using adequate meta-analytic methods. One in four reported contacting authors for further information and about half included only patients with diagnostic uncertainty.
conclusionUp to half of the diagnostic endocrine tests in which the likelihood ratio was calculated or provided are likely to be helpful in practice when positive as are one-quarter when negative. Most diagnostic systematic reviews in endocrine lack methodological rigor, protection against bias, and offer limited credibility. Substantial efforts, therefore, seem necessary to improve the quality of diagnostic systematic reviews in endocrinology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28585154What 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.