Methods and reporting of systematic reviews of comparative accuracy were deficient: a methodological survey and proposed guidance

Ref ID 380
First Author Y. Takwoingi
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2020
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31843693/
Keywords Statistical
Expertise
Diagnostic
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data
Number of systematic reviews included 127
Summary of Findings 13% of included reviews restricted study selection and test comparisons to comparative accuracy studies while the remaining 87% reviews included any study type. 42% statistically compared test accuracy but only 34% of these used recommended methods. Reporting of several items, in particular the role of the index tests, test comparison strategy and limitations of indirect comparisons was deficient in many reviews.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes