SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Design-related bias in studies investigating diagnostic tests for venous thromboembolic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early detection and diagnosis of venous thromboembolism are vital for effective treatment. To what extent methodological shortcomings exist in studies of diagnostic tests and whether this affects published test performance is unknown. Objectives: We aimed to assess the methodological quality of studies evaluating diagnostic tests for venous thromboembolic diseases and quantify the direction and impact of design characteristics on diagnostic performance. Methods: We conducted a literature search using Medline and Embase databases for systematic reviews summarizing diagnostic accuracy studies for five target disorders associated with venous thromboembolism. The following data were extracted for each primary study: methodological characteristics, the risk of bias scored by the QUADAS QUADAS-2 instrument, and numbers of true-positives, true-negatives, false-positives, and false-negatives. In a meta-analysis, we compared diagnostic accuracy measures from studies unlikely to be biased with those likely to be biased. Results: Eighty-five systematic reviews comprising 1'818 primary studies were included. Adequate quality assessment tools were used in 43 systematic reviews only (51%). The risk of bias was estimated to be low for all items in 23% of the primary studies. A high or unclear risk of bias in particular domains of the QUADAS/QUADAS-2 tool was associated with marked differences in the reported sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: Significant limitations in the methodological quality of studies assessing diagnostic tests for venous thromboembolic disorders exist, and studies at risk of bias are unlikely to report valid estimates of test performance. Established guidelines for evaluation of diagnostic tests should be more systematically adopted. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD 42021264912).
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.