ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2020
Methods and reporting of systematic reviews of comparative accuracy were deficient: a methodological survey and proposed guidance.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of diagnostic efficiency of detecting IgG and IgE with immunoassay method in diagnosing ABPA: a meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Are risk assessment tools more accurate than unstructured judgments in predicting violent, any, and sexual offending? A meta-analysis of direct comparison studies.Behavioral sciences & the lawPooled it
- Serum human epididymis Protein-4 outperforms conventional biomarkers in the early detection of non-small cell lung cancer.iScience · 2024Article
- How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide.Radiology · 2023Review
- Health technology assessment of diagnostic tests: a state of the art review of methods guidance from international organizations.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- TOMAS-R: A template to identify and plan analysis for clinically important variation and multiplicity in diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2022Article
- Reporting of test comparisons in diagnostic accuracy studies: A literature review.Research synthesis methods · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to examine methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses which compare diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of multiple index tests, identify good practice, and develop guidance for better reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingMethodological survey of 127 comparative or multiple tests reviews published in 74 different general medical and specialist journals. We summarized methods and reporting characteristics that are likely to differ between reviews of a single test and comparative reviews. We then developed guidance to enhance reporting of test comparisons in DTA reviews.
resultsOf 127 reviews, 16 (13%) reviews restricted study selection and test comparisons to comparative accuracy studies while the remaining 111 (87%) reviews included any study type. Fifty-three reviews (42%) statistically compared test accuracy with only 18 (34%) of these using recommended methods. Reporting of several items-in particular the role of the index tests, test comparison strategy, and limitations of indirect comparisons (i.e., comparisons involving any study type)-was deficient in many reviews. Five reviews with exemplary methods and reporting were identified.
conclusionReporting quality of reviews which evaluate and compare multiple tests is poor. The guidance developed, complemented with the exemplars, can assist review authors in producing better quality comparative reviews.
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.