OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and concordance of methodologic criteria in abstracts versus articles regarding the diagnosis of trichomoniasis. STUDY DESIGN: Survey of published literature. DATA SOURCES: Studies indexed in MEDLINE (1976-1998). STUDY SELECTION: Studies that used culture as the gold or reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from abstract and articles were independently abstracted using 4 methodologic criteria: (1) prospective evaluation of consecutive patients; (2) test results did not influence the decision to do gold standard; (3) independent and blind comparison with gold standard; and (4) broad spectrum of patients used. The total number of criteria met for each report was calculated to create a quality score (0-4). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: None of the 33 abstracts or full articles reported all 4 criteria. Three criteria were reported in none of the abstracts and in 18% of articles (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 8.6% to 34%). Two criteria were reported in 18% of abstracts (95% CI, 8.6% to 34%) and 42% of articles (95% CI, 27% to 59%). One criterion was reported in 42% of abstracts (95% CI, 27% to 59%) and 27% of articles (95% CI, 15% to 44%). No criteria were reported in 13 (39%) of 33 abstracts (95% CI, 25% to 56%) and 4 (12%) of 33 articles (95% CI, 4.8% to 27%). The agreement of the criteria between the abstract and the article was poor (kappa -0.09; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0) to moderate (kappa 0.53; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Information on methods basic to study validity is often absent from both abstract and paper. The concordance of such criteria between the abstract and article needs to improve.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and concordance of methodologic criteria in abstracts versus articles regarding the diagnosis of trichomoniasis. STUDY DESIGN: Survey of published literature. DATA SOURCES: Studies indexed in MEDLINE (1976-1998). STUDY SELECTION: Studies that used culture as the gold or reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from abstract and articles were independently abstracted using 4 methodologic criteria: (1) prospective evaluation of consecutive patients; (2) test results did not influence the decision to do gold standard; (3) independent and blind comparison with gold standard; and (4) broad spectrum of patients used. The total number of criteria met for each report was calculated to create a quality score (0-4). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: None of the 33 abstracts or full articles reported all 4 criteria. Three criteria were reported in none of the abstracts and in 18% of articles (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 8.6% to 34%). Two criteria were reported in 18% of abstracts (95% CI, 8.6% to 34%) and 42% of articles (95% CI, 27% to 59%). One criterion was reported in 42% of abstracts (95% CI, 27% to 59%) and 27% of articles (95% CI, 15% to 44%). No criteria were reported in 13 (39%) of 33 abstracts (95% CI, 25% to 56%) and 4 (12%) of 33 articles (95% CI, 4.8% to 27%). The agreement of the criteria between the abstract and the article was poor (kappa -0.09; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0) to moderate (kappa 0.53; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Information on methods basic to study validity is often absent from both abstract and paper. The concordance of such criteria between the abstract and article needs to improve.
Authors: Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Marcello Di Nisio; Nynke Smidt; Jeroen C van Rijn; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: CMAJ Date: 2006-02-14 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Sally Hopewell; Mike Clarke; David Moher; Elizabeth Wager; Philippa Middleton; Douglas G Altman; Kenneth F Schulz Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 11.069