PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8135452

Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To introduce guidelines for the conduct, reporting, and critical appraisal of meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests and to apply these guidelines to recently published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests. DATA SOURCES: Based on current concepts of how to assess diagnostic tests and conduct meta-analyses. They are applied to all meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests published in English-language journals from January 1990 through December 1991, identified through MEDLINE searching and by experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION: Meta-analyses were included if at least two of three independent readers regarded their main purpose as the evaluation of diagnostic tests against a concurrent reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: By three independent readers on the extent to which meta-analyses fulfilled each guideline, with consensus defined as agreement by at least two readers. DATA SYNTHESIS: The guidelines are concerned with determining the objective of the meta-analysis, identifying the relevant literature and extracting the data, estimating diagnostic accuracy, and identifying the extent to which variability is explained by study design characteristics and characteristics of the patients and diagnostic test. In general, the guidelines were only partially fulfilled. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis is potentially important in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Those reading meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests should critically appraise them; those doing meta-analyses should apply recently developed methods. The conduct and reporting of primary studies on which meta-analyses are based require improvement.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Irwig, A N Tosteson, C Gatsonis, J Lau, G Colditz, T C Chalmers, F Mosteller. 1994-04-15. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests.. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-120-8-199404150-00008

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias

Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials.

CONTEXT: Medical evidence may be biased over time if completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials are delayed when results are not statistically significant. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the time to completion and the time to publication of randomized phase 2 and phase 3 trials are affected by the statistical significance of results and to describe the natural history of such trials. DESIGN: Prospective cohort of randomized efficacy trials conducted by 2 trialist groups from 1986 to 1996. SETTING: Multicenter trial groups in human immunodeficiency virus infection sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. PATIENTS: A total of 109 efficacy trials (total enrollment, 43708 patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time from start of enrollment to completion of follow-up and time from completion of follow-up to peer-reviewed publication assessed with survival analysis. RESULTS: The median time from start of enrollment to publication was 5.5 years and was substantially longer for negative trials than for results favoring an experimental arm (6.5 vs 4.3 years, respectively; P<.001; hazard ratio for time to publication for positive vs negative trials, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-7.7). This difference was mostly attributable to differences in the time from completion to publication (median, 3.0 vs 1.7 years for negative vs positive trials; P<.001). On average, trials with significant results favoring any arm completed follow-up slightly earlier than trials with nonsignificant results (median, 2.3 vs 2.5 years; P=.045), but long-protracted trials often had low event rates and failed to reach statistical significance, while trials that were terminated early had significant results. Positive trials were submitted for publication significantly more rapidly after completion than were negative trials (median, 1.0 vs 1.6 years; P=.001) and were published more rapidly after submission (median, 0.8 vs 1.1 years; P=.04). CONCLUSION: Among randomized efficacy trials, there is a time lag in the publication of negative findings that occurs mostly after the completion of the trial follow-up.

Bias