Cargando…

Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND: The validity of a meta-analysis can be understood better in light of the possible impact of publication bias. The majority of the methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects are developed for meta-analyses of intervention studies, leaving authors of diagnostic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Enst, W Annefloor, Ochodo, Eleanor, Scholten, Rob JPM, Hooft, Lotty, Leeflang, Mariska M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24884381
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-70
_version_ 1782318084205314048
author van Enst, W Annefloor
Ochodo, Eleanor
Scholten, Rob JPM
Hooft, Lotty
Leeflang, Mariska M
author_facet van Enst, W Annefloor
Ochodo, Eleanor
Scholten, Rob JPM
Hooft, Lotty
Leeflang, Mariska M
author_sort van Enst, W Annefloor
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The validity of a meta-analysis can be understood better in light of the possible impact of publication bias. The majority of the methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects are developed for meta-analyses of intervention studies, leaving authors of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews with limited guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate if and how publication bias was assessed in meta-analyses of DTA, and to compare the results of various statistical methods used to assess publication bias. METHODS: A systematic search was initiated to identify DTA reviews with a meta-analysis published between September 2011 and January 2012. We extracted all information about publication bias from the reviews and the two-by-two tables. Existing statistical methods for the detection of publication bias were applied on data from the included studies. RESULTS: Out of 1,335 references, 114 reviews could be included. Publication bias was explicitly mentioned in 75 reviews (65.8%) and 47 of these had performed statistical methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects: 6 by drawing funnel plots, 16 by statistical testing and 25 by applying both methods. The applied tests were Egger’s test (n = 18), Deeks’ test (n = 12), Begg’s test (n = 5), both the Egger and Begg tests (n = 4), and other tests (n = 2). Our own comparison of the results of Begg’s, Egger’s and Deeks’ test for 92 meta-analyses indicated that up to 34% of the results did not correspond with one another. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of DTA review authors mention or investigate publication bias. They mainly use suboptimal methods like the Begg and Egger tests that are not developed for DTA meta-analyses. Our comparison of the Begg, Egger and Deeks tests indicated that these tests do give different results and thus are not interchangeable. Deeks’ test is recommended for DTA meta-analyses and should be preferred.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4035673
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40356732014-05-29 Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study van Enst, W Annefloor Ochodo, Eleanor Scholten, Rob JPM Hooft, Lotty Leeflang, Mariska M BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: The validity of a meta-analysis can be understood better in light of the possible impact of publication bias. The majority of the methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects are developed for meta-analyses of intervention studies, leaving authors of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews with limited guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate if and how publication bias was assessed in meta-analyses of DTA, and to compare the results of various statistical methods used to assess publication bias. METHODS: A systematic search was initiated to identify DTA reviews with a meta-analysis published between September 2011 and January 2012. We extracted all information about publication bias from the reviews and the two-by-two tables. Existing statistical methods for the detection of publication bias were applied on data from the included studies. RESULTS: Out of 1,335 references, 114 reviews could be included. Publication bias was explicitly mentioned in 75 reviews (65.8%) and 47 of these had performed statistical methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects: 6 by drawing funnel plots, 16 by statistical testing and 25 by applying both methods. The applied tests were Egger’s test (n = 18), Deeks’ test (n = 12), Begg’s test (n = 5), both the Egger and Begg tests (n = 4), and other tests (n = 2). Our own comparison of the results of Begg’s, Egger’s and Deeks’ test for 92 meta-analyses indicated that up to 34% of the results did not correspond with one another. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of DTA review authors mention or investigate publication bias. They mainly use suboptimal methods like the Begg and Egger tests that are not developed for DTA meta-analyses. Our comparison of the Begg, Egger and Deeks tests indicated that these tests do give different results and thus are not interchangeable. Deeks’ test is recommended for DTA meta-analyses and should be preferred. BioMed Central 2014-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4035673/ /pubmed/24884381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-70 Text en Copyright © 2014 van Enst et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
van Enst, W Annefloor
Ochodo, Eleanor
Scholten, Rob JPM
Hooft, Lotty
Leeflang, Mariska M
Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
title Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
title_full Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
title_fullStr Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
title_full_unstemmed Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
title_short Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
title_sort investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24884381
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-70
work_keys_str_mv AT vanenstwannefloor investigationofpublicationbiasinmetaanalysesofdiagnostictestaccuracyametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT ochodoeleanor investigationofpublicationbiasinmetaanalysesofdiagnostictestaccuracyametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT scholtenrobjpm investigationofpublicationbiasinmetaanalysesofdiagnostictestaccuracyametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT hooftlotty investigationofpublicationbiasinmetaanalysesofdiagnostictestaccuracyametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT leeflangmariskam investigationofpublicationbiasinmetaanalysesofdiagnostictestaccuracyametaepidemiologicalstudy