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 • Diagnostic
• Low methodological quality
• Expertise
• Statistical
Problem(s) • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data
• Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United Kingdom
Checklists • PRISMA-DTA
Aim To assess methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses which compare diagnostic test accuracy of multiple index tests from a sample of reviews published in 74 different general medical and specialist journals.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
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.
Number of systematic reviews included 127
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 1023
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description