Dataset Information

Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Many diagnostic accuracy studies are never reported in full in a peer-reviewed journal. Searching for unpublished studies may avoid bias due to selective publication, enrich the power of systematic reviews, and thereby help to reduce research waste. We assessed searching practices among recent systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS:We extracted data from 100 non-Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy indexed in MEDLINE and published between October 2017 and January 2018 and from all 100 Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy published by December 2018, irrespective of whether meta-analysis had been performed. RESULTS:Non-Cochrane and Cochrane reviews searched a median of 4 (IQR 3-5) and 6 (IQR 5-9) databases, respectively; most often MEDLINE/PubMed (n = 100 and n = 100) and EMBASE (n = 81 and n = 100). Additional efforts to identify studies beyond searching bibliographic databases were performed in 76 and 98 reviews, most often through screening reference lists (n = 71 and n = 96), review/guideline articles (n = 18 and n = 52), or citing articles (n = 3 and n = 42). Specific sources of unpublished studies were searched in 22 and 68 reviews, for example, conference proceedings (n = 4 and n = 18), databases only containing conference abstracts (n = 2 and n = 33), or trial registries (n = 12 and n = 39). At least one unpublished study was included in 17 and 23 reviews. Overall, 39 of 2082 studies (1.9%) included in non-Cochrane reviews were unpublished, and 64 of 2780 studies (2.3%) in Cochrane reviews, most often conference abstracts (97/103). CONCLUSION:Searching practices vary considerably across systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. Unpublished studies are a minimal fraction of the evidence included in recent reviews.

SUBMITTER: Korevaar DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7317757 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.

Korevaar Daniël A DA Salameh Jean-Paul JP Vali Yasaman Y Cohen Jérémie F JF McInnes Matthew D F MDF Spijker René R Bossuyt Patrick M PM

Research synthesis methods 20200205 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Many diagnostic accuracy studies are never reported in full in a peer-reviewed journal. Searching for unpublished studies may avoid bias due to selective publication, enrich the power of systematic reviews, and thereby help to reduce research waste. We assessed searching practices among recent systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.<h4>Methods</h4>We extracted data from 100 non-Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy indexed in MEDLINE and published between Oct ...[more]

PMID: 31981399

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSystematic reviews of medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are affected by between-study heterogeneity due to a range of factors. Failure to appropriately assess the extent and causes of heterogeneity compromises the interpretability of systematic review findings.ObjectiveTo assess how heterogeneity has been examined in medical imaging DTA studies.Evidence reviewThe PubMed database was searched for systematic reviews of medical imaging DTA studies that performed a meta-analysis. The search was limited to the 40 journals with highest impact factor in the radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging category in the InCites Journal Citation Reports of 2021 to reach a sample size of 200 to 300 included studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to characterize the imaging modality, target condition, type of meta-analysis model used, strategies for evaluating heterogeneity, and sources of heterogeneity identified. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether any factors were associated with at least 1 source of heterogeneity being identified in the included meta-analyses. Methodological quality evaluation was not performed. Data analysis occurred from October to December 2022.FindingsA total of 242 meta-analyses involving a median (range) of 987 (119-441 510) patients across a diverse range of disease categories and imaging modalities were included. The extent of heterogeneity was adequately described (ie, whether it was absent, low, moderate, or high) in 220 studies (91%) and was most commonly assessed using the I2 statistic (185 studies [76%]) and forest plots (181 studies [75%]). Heterogeneity was rated as moderate to high in 191 studies (79%). Of all included meta-analyses, 122 (50%) performed subgroup analysis and 87 (36%) performed meta-regression. Of the 242 studies assessed, 189 (78%) included 10 or more primary studies. Of these 189 studies, 60 (32%) did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analysis. Reasons for being unable to investigate sources of heterogeneity included inadequate reporting of primary study characteristics and a low number of included primary studies. Use of meta-regression was associated with identification of at least 1 source of variability (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.23; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of assessment of heterogeneity in medical imaging DTA meta-analyses, most meta-analyses were impacted by a moderate to high level of heterogeneity, presenting interpretive challenges. These findings suggest that, despite the development and availability of more rigorous statistical models, heterogeneity appeared to be incomplete, inconsistently evaluated, or methodologically questionable in many cases, which lessened the interpretability of the analyses performed; comprehensive heterogeneity assessment should be addressed at the author level by improving personal familiarity with appropriate statistical methodology for assessing heterogeneity and involving biostatisticians and epidemiologists in study design, as well as at the editorial level, by mandating adherence to methodologic standards in primary DTA studies and DTA meta-analyses.

Project description:Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting.This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers.A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards.This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods.

Project description:IntroductionSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease with multiorgan inflammatory involvement and a mortality rate that is 2.6-fold higher than individuals of the same age and sex in the general population. Approximately 50% of patients with SLE develop renal impairment (lupus nephritis). Delayed diagnosis of lupus nephritis is associated with a higher risk of progression to end-stage renal disease, the need for replacement therapy, and mortality. The initial clinical manifestations of lupus nephritis are often discrete or absent and are usually detected through complementary tests. Although widely used in clinical practice, their accuracy is limited. A great scientific effort has been exerted towards searching for new, more sensitive, and specific biomarkers in recent years. Some systematic reviews have individually evaluated new serum and urinary biomarkers tested in patients with lupus nephritis. This overview aimed to summarize systematic reviews on the accuracy of novel serum and urinary biomarkers for diagnosing lupus nephritis in patients with SLE, discussing how our results can guide the clinical management of the disease and the direction of research in this area.MethodsThe research question is "What is the accuracy of the new serum and urinary biomarkers studied for the diagnosis of LN in patients with SLE?". We searched for systematic reviews of observational studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of new serum or urinary biomarkers of lupus nephritis. The following databases were included: PubMed, EMBASE, BIREME/LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane, including gray literature found via Google Scholar and PROQUEST. Two authors assessed the reviews for inclusion, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias (ROBIS tool).ResultsTen SRs on the diagnostic accuracy of new serum and urinary BMs in LN were selected. The SRs evaluated 7 distinct BMs: (a) antibodies (anti-Sm, anti-RNP, and anti-C1q), (b) cytokines (TWEAK and MCP-1), (c) a chemokine (IP-10), and (d) an acute phase glycoprotein (NGAL), in a total of 20 review arms (9 that analyzed serum BMs, and 12 that analyzed BMs in urine). The population evaluated in the primary studies was predominantly adults. Two SRs included strictly adults, 5 reviews also included studies in the paediatric population, and 4 did not report the age groups. The results of the evaluation with the ROBIS tool showed that most of the reviews had a low overall risk of bias.ConclusionsThere are 10 SRs of evidence relating to the diagnostic accuracy of serum and urinary biomarkers for lupus nephritis. Among the BMs evaluated, anti-C1q, urinary MCP-1, TWEAK, and NGAL stood out, highlighting the need for additional research, especially on LN diagnostic panels, and attempting to address methodological issues within diagnostic accuracy research. This would allow for a better understanding of their usefulness and possibly validate their clinical use in the future.RegistrationThis project is registered on the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42020196693).

Dataset Information

Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.

Publications

Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets