35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence.

          Publication bias is the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings. Much of what has been learned about publication bias comes from the social sciences, less from the field of medicine. In medicine, three studies have provided direct evidence for this bias. Prevention of publication bias is important both from the scientific perspective (complete dissemination of knowledge) and from the perspective of those who combine results from a number of similar studies (meta-analysis). If treatment decisions are based on the published literature, then the literature must include all available data that is of acceptable quality. Currently, obtaining information regarding all studies undertaken in a given field is difficult, even impossible. Registration of clinical trials, and perhaps other types of studies, is the direction in which the scientific community should move.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Usefulness of anti-p155 autoantibody for diagnosing cancer-associated dermatomyositis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              Anti-p155 autoantibody, which was recently described in adult patients with dermatomyositis (DM), seems to be associated with cancer in this population. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the accuracy of anti-p155 testing for the diagnosis of cancer-associated myositis. We searched relevant databases, with no restrictions on study design or language, for original studies that included adult patients with probable/definite DM or amyopathic DM who were evaluated for neoplasm and anti-p155 status. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate model. We computed the diagnostic odds ratio (OR), likelihood ratios (LRs) for positive and negative test results, positive and negative predictive values, and the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I(2) statistic, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were computed for the parameters studied. Six studies including a total of 312 adult patients with DM were selected. The pooled sensitivity of anti-p155 for diagnosing cancer-associated DM was 78% (95% CI 45-94%), and specificity was 89% (95% CI 82-93%). The diagnostic OR was 27.26 (95% CI 6.59-112.82), and LRs for positive and negative test results were 6.79 (95% CI 4.11-11.23) and 0.25 (95% CI 0.08-0.76), respectively. Heterogeneity was substantial except with regard to the LR for a positive test result. The area under the SROC curve was 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93). Taking the pooled prevalence of 17% as pretest probability, anti-p155 had a positive predictive value of 58% and a negative predictive value of 95%. Our findings indicate that anti-p155 autoantibody determination is useful for diagnosing cancer-associated myositis and guiding disease management. Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Rheumatology.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2288
                2014
                23 May 2014
                : 14
                : 70
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Dutch Cochrane Centre and Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Current address: Dutch Cochrane Centre, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                Article
                1471-2288-14-70
                10.1186/1471-2288-14-70
                4035673
                24884381
                43069d8a-01dc-4276-ab8d-b41652e9faf7
                Copyright © 2014 van Enst et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                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.

                History
                : 10 February 2014
                : 6 May 2014
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                publication bias,diagnostic test accuracy,funnel plot,meta-analyses,small study-effects
                Medicine
                publication bias, diagnostic test accuracy, funnel plot, meta-analyses, small study-effects

                Comments

                Comment on this article