Dataset Information

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the methods and reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.

Data sources

Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and five other databases identified reviews of tests used in patients with cancer. Of these, 89 satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting accuracy of the test compared with a reference test, including an electronic search, and published since 1990.

Review methods

All reviews were assessed for methods and reporting of objectives, search strategy, participants, clinical setting, index and reference tests, study design, study results, graphs, meta-analysis, quality, bias, and procedures in the review. We assessed 25 randomly selected reviews in more detail.

Results

75% (67) of the reviews stated inclusion criteria, 49% (44) tabulated characteristics of included studies, 40% (36) reported details of study design, 17% (15) reported on the clinical setting, 17% (15) reported on the severity of disease in participants, and 49% (44) reported on whether the tumours were primary, metastatic, or recurrent. Of the 25 reviews assessed in detail, 68% (17) stated the reference standard used in the review, 36% (9) reported the definition of a positive result for the index test, and 56% (14) reported sensitivity, specificity, and sample sizes for individual studies. Of the 89 reviews, 61% (54) attempted to formally synthesise results of the studies and 32% (29) reported formal assessments of study quality.

Conclusions

Reliability and relevance of current systematic reviews of diagnostic tests is compromised by poor reporting and review methods.

SUBMITTER: Mallett S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1553548 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting.

Mallett Susan S Deeks Jonathan J JJ Halligan Steve S Hopewell Sally S Cornelius Victoria V Altman Douglas G DG

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20060718 7565

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the methods and reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.<h4>Data sources</h4>Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and five other databases identified reviews of tests used in patients with cancer. Of these, 89 satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting accuracy of the test compared with a reference test, including an electronic search, and published since 1990.<h4>Review methods</h4>All reviews were assessed for methods and reporting of objectives, ...[more]

PMID: 16849365

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveThe living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance.MethodsA standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.ResultsOf the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.ConclusionImportant evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).Review methodsDatabases were searched for systematic reviews having an adverse event as the main outcome, published from January 2008 to April 2011. Adverse events included an adverse reaction, harms, or complications associated with any healthcare intervention. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the complete safety profile of an intervention were also included. We developed a list of 37 items to measure the quality of reporting on harms in each review; data were collected as dichotomous outcomes ("yes" or "no" for each item).ResultsOf 4644 reviews identified, 309 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses primarily assessing harms (13 from CDSR; 296 from DARE). Despite a short time interval, the comparison between the years of 2008 and 2010-11 showed no difference on the quality of reporting over time (P=0.079). Titles in fewer than half the reviews (proportion of reviews 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.52)) did not mention any harm related terms. Almost one third of DARE reviews (0.26 (0.22 to 0.31)) did not clearly define the adverse events reviewed, nor did they specify the study designs selected for inclusion in their methods section. Almost half of reviews (n=170) did not consider patient risk factors or length of follow-up when reviewing harms of an intervention. Of 67 reviews of complications related to surgery or other procedures, only four (0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)) reported professional qualifications of the individuals involved. The overall, unweighted, proportion of reviews with good reporting was 0.56 (0.55 to 0.57); corresponding proportions were 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57) in 2008, 0.55 (0.54 to 0.57) in 2009, and 0.57 (0.55 to 0.58) in 2010-11.ConclusionSystematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately. Improving reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews is an important step towards a balanced assessment of an intervention.

Project description:BackgroundMany systematic reviews (SRs) have been published about the various treatments for distal radius fractures (DRF). The heterogeneity of SRs results may come from the misuse of SR methods, and literature overviews have demonstrated that SRs should be considered with caution as they may not always be synonymous with high-quality standards. Our objective is to evaluate the quality of published SRs on the treatment of DRF through these tools.MethodsThe methods utilized in this review were previously published in the PROSPERO database. We considered SRs of surgical and nonsurgical interventions for acute DRF in adults. A comprehensive search strategy was performed in the MEDLINE database (inception to May 2017) and we manually searched the grey literature for non-indexed research. Data were independently extracted by two authors. We assessed SR internal validity and reporting using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted article characteristics and provided Spearman's correlation measurements.ResultsForty-one articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The mean score for PRISMA was 15.90 (CI 95%, 13.9-17.89) and AMSTAR was 6.48 (CI 95% 5.72-7.23). SRs that considered only RCTs had better AMSTAR [7.56 (2.1) vs. 5.62 (2.3); p = 0.014] and PRISMA scores [18.61 (5.22) vs. 13.93 (6.47), p = 0.027]. The presence of meta-analysis on the SRs altered PRISMA scores [19.17 (4.75) vs. 10.21 (4.51), p = 0.001] and AMSTAR scores [7.68 (1.9) vs. 4.39 (1.66), p = 0.001]. Journal impact factor or declaration of conflict of interest did not change PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. We found substantial inter observer agreement for PRISMA (0.82, 95% CI 0.62-0.94; p = 0.01) and AMSTAR (0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.81; p = 0.01), and moderate correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR scores (0.83, 95% CI 0.62-0.92; p = 0.01).ConclusionsDRF RCT-only SRs have better PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. These tools have substantial inter-observer agreement and moderate inter-tool correlation. We exposed the current research panorama and pointed out some factors that can contribute to improvements on the topic.

Project description:BackgroundMoxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported.MethodsSeven databases (including four English and three Chinese databases) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 14-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion (STRICTOM). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 55%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions.ConclusionThe reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.

Dataset Information

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting.

Objectives

Data sources

Review methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets