Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30899976›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2019

Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research: evaluation of current practices.

Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi, Mariska Leeflang, Lee Treanor, Noemie Kraaijpoel, Jean-Paul Salameh, Mostafa Alabousi, Nabil Asraoui, Jade Choo-Foo, Yemisi Takwoingi, Jonathan J Deeks and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2019. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

11 authors.

Anahita Dehmoobad SharifabadiDepartment of Radiology-Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Mariska LeeflangAmsterdam UMC, Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam Public Health, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Lee TreanorDepartment of Radiology-Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Noemie KraaijpoelAcademic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jean-Paul SalamehClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Mostafa AlabousiMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Nabil AsraouiFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Jade Choo-FooFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Yemisi TakwoingiTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Jonathan J DeeksTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Matthew D F McInnesDepartment of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Room c159 Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. mmcinnes@toh.on.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8404-4075

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2017-10-059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this methodological review was to determine the extent to which comparative imaging systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) use primary studies with comparative or non-comparative designs.

methodsMEDLINE was used to identify DTA systematic reviews published in imaging journals between January 2000 and May 2018. INCLUSION CRITERIA: systematic reviews comparing at least two index tests (one of which was imaging-based); review characteristics were extracted. Study design and other characteristics of primary studies included in the systematic reviews were evaluated.

resultsOne hundred three comparative imaging reviews were included; 11 (11%) included only comparative studies, 12 (11%) included only non-comparative primary studies, and 80 (78%) included both comparative and non-comparative primary studies. For reviews containing both comparative and non-comparative primary studies, the median proportion of non-comparative primary studies was 81% (IQR 57-90%). Of 92 reviews that included non-comparative primary studies, 86% did not recognize this as a limitation. Furthermore, among 4182 primary studies, 3438 (82%) were non-comparative and 744 (18%) were comparative in design.

conclusionMost primary studies included in comparative imaging reviews are non-comparative in design and awareness of the risk of bias associated with this is low. This may lead to incorrect conclusions about the relative accuracy of diagnostic tests and be counter-productive for informing guidelines and funding decisions about imaging tests. KEY POINTS: • Few comparative accuracy imaging reviews include only primary studies with optimal comparative study designs. Among the rest, few recognize the risk of bias conferred from inclusion of primary studies with non-comparative designs. • The demand for accurate comparative accuracy data combined with minimal awareness of valid comparative study designs may lead to counter-productive research and inadequately supported clinical decisions for diagnostic tests. • Using comparative accuracy imaging reviews with a high risk of bias to inform guidelines and funding decisions may have detrimental impacts on patient care.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicTomography, X-Ray ComputedComparative effectiveness researchDiagnostic test, routineSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID30899976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.