Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
About half of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews in the Cochrane Library are comparative DTA reviews. The ideal design of primary studies in these reviews are comparative accuracy studies, which compare the relative performance of two or more diagnostic tests. As any other form of research, such studies should be reported in an informative manner to allow replication and to be useful for decision-making.
Objectives:
To assess whether and how essential components of test comparisons were reported in comparative accuracy studies.
Methods:
We evaluated 100 comparative accuracy studies, published in 2015, 2016 or 2017, randomly sampled from 238 comparative DTA systematic reviews. We extracted information on 20 reporting items, pertaining to the identification of the comparison, its validity, and the actual results of the comparison.
Results:
Most comparative accuracy studies (n=73) failed to identify the comparative nature of the study in their title. A majority did not report which index tests were compared in their methods section (n=67). About a third (n=36) did not report the comparison as a study objective or a hypothesis. Although most studies (n=86) reported how participants had been assigned to index tests, we could often not evaluate whether index test interpreters had been blinded to the results of other index tests (n=66), nor could we identify the sequence of index tests (n=51) or the methods for comparing measures of diagnostic accuracy (n=59). Joint contingency table (2x2x2 tables) data were only reported by nine from 89 paired comparative studies. More than half of studies (n=64) did not provide measures of precision (such as p-values or confidence intervals) for the reported comparative accuracy estimates.
Conclusions:
Essential components of test comparisons are frequently missed or incompletely reported by comparative accuracy studies in systematic reviews. This could consequently impede identification of these studies and interpretation of their findings. Explicit guidance for reporting comparative accuracy studies may facilitate the production of full and informative study reports.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Well-conducted comparative accuracy studies, have the potential to yield high-certainty evidence for informing clinical decision making regarding tests. Considering their importance, they should be reported meticulously to allow evidence users to appreciate their findings and to consider their applicability to different patient groups and health care settings.
About half of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews in the Cochrane Library are comparative DTA reviews. The ideal design of primary studies in these reviews are comparative accuracy studies, which compare the relative performance of two or more diagnostic tests. As any other form of research, such studies should be reported in an informative manner to allow replication and to be useful for decision-making.
Objectives:
To assess whether and how essential components of test comparisons were reported in comparative accuracy studies.
Methods:
We evaluated 100 comparative accuracy studies, published in 2015, 2016 or 2017, randomly sampled from 238 comparative DTA systematic reviews. We extracted information on 20 reporting items, pertaining to the identification of the comparison, its validity, and the actual results of the comparison.
Results:
Most comparative accuracy studies (n=73) failed to identify the comparative nature of the study in their title. A majority did not report which index tests were compared in their methods section (n=67). About a third (n=36) did not report the comparison as a study objective or a hypothesis. Although most studies (n=86) reported how participants had been assigned to index tests, we could often not evaluate whether index test interpreters had been blinded to the results of other index tests (n=66), nor could we identify the sequence of index tests (n=51) or the methods for comparing measures of diagnostic accuracy (n=59). Joint contingency table (2x2x2 tables) data were only reported by nine from 89 paired comparative studies. More than half of studies (n=64) did not provide measures of precision (such as p-values or confidence intervals) for the reported comparative accuracy estimates.
Conclusions:
Essential components of test comparisons are frequently missed or incompletely reported by comparative accuracy studies in systematic reviews. This could consequently impede identification of these studies and interpretation of their findings. Explicit guidance for reporting comparative accuracy studies may facilitate the production of full and informative study reports.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Well-conducted comparative accuracy studies, have the potential to yield high-certainty evidence for informing clinical decision making regarding tests. Considering their importance, they should be reported meticulously to allow evidence users to appreciate their findings and to consider their applicability to different patient groups and health care settings.