Cargando…

Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature

BACKGROUND: There are a variety of ways in which accuracy of clinical tests can be summarised in systematic reviews. Variation in reporting of summary measures has only been assessed in a small survey restricted to meta-analyses of screening studies found in a single database. Therefore, we performe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Honest, Honest, Khan, Khalid S
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2002
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100326/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11884248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-2-4
_version_ 1782120194228879360
author Honest, Honest
Khan, Khalid S
author_facet Honest, Honest
Khan, Khalid S
author_sort Honest, Honest
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are a variety of ways in which accuracy of clinical tests can be summarised in systematic reviews. Variation in reporting of summary measures has only been assessed in a small survey restricted to meta-analyses of screening studies found in a single database. Therefore, we performed this study to assess the measures of accuracy used for reporting results of primary studies as well as their meta-analysis in systematic reviews of test accuracy studies. METHODS: Relevant reviews on test accuracy were selected from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (1994–2000), which electronically searches seven bibliographic databases and manually searches key resources. The structured abstracts of these reviews were screened and information on accuracy measures was extracted from the full texts of 90 relevant reviews, 60 of which used meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sensitivity or specificity was used for reporting the results of primary studies in 65/90 (72%) reviews, predictive values in 26/90 (28%), and likelihood ratios in 20/90 (22%). For meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity or specificity was used in 35/60 (58%) reviews, pooled predictive values in 11/60 (18%), pooled likelihood ratios in 13/60 (22%), and pooled diagnostic odds ratio in 5/60 (8%). Summary ROC was used in 44/60 (73%) of the meta-analyses. There were no significant differences in measures of test accuracy among reviews published earlier (1994–97) and those published later (1998–2000). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in ways of reporting and summarising results of test accuracy studies in systematic reviews. There is a need for consensus about the best ways of reporting results of test accuracy studies in reviews.
format Text
id pubmed-100326
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2002
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-1003262002-03-29 Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature Honest, Honest Khan, Khalid S BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: There are a variety of ways in which accuracy of clinical tests can be summarised in systematic reviews. Variation in reporting of summary measures has only been assessed in a small survey restricted to meta-analyses of screening studies found in a single database. Therefore, we performed this study to assess the measures of accuracy used for reporting results of primary studies as well as their meta-analysis in systematic reviews of test accuracy studies. METHODS: Relevant reviews on test accuracy were selected from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (1994–2000), which electronically searches seven bibliographic databases and manually searches key resources. The structured abstracts of these reviews were screened and information on accuracy measures was extracted from the full texts of 90 relevant reviews, 60 of which used meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sensitivity or specificity was used for reporting the results of primary studies in 65/90 (72%) reviews, predictive values in 26/90 (28%), and likelihood ratios in 20/90 (22%). For meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity or specificity was used in 35/60 (58%) reviews, pooled predictive values in 11/60 (18%), pooled likelihood ratios in 13/60 (22%), and pooled diagnostic odds ratio in 5/60 (8%). Summary ROC was used in 44/60 (73%) of the meta-analyses. There were no significant differences in measures of test accuracy among reviews published earlier (1994–97) and those published later (1998–2000). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in ways of reporting and summarising results of test accuracy studies in systematic reviews. There is a need for consensus about the best ways of reporting results of test accuracy studies in reviews. BioMed Central 2002-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC100326/ /pubmed/11884248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-2-4 Text en Copyright © 2002 Honest and Khan; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
spellingShingle Research Article
Honest, Honest
Khan, Khalid S
Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature
title Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature
title_full Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature
title_fullStr Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature
title_full_unstemmed Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature
title_short Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature
title_sort reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100326/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11884248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-2-4
work_keys_str_mv AT honesthonest reportingofmeasuresofaccuracyinsystematicreviewsofdiagnosticliterature
AT khankhalids reportingofmeasuresofaccuracyinsystematicreviewsofdiagnosticliterature