Literature DB >> 24381228

Publication and reporting of test accuracy studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Daniël A Korevaar1, Eleanor A Ochodo, Patrick M M Bossuyt, Lotty Hooft.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Failure to publish and selective reporting are recognized problems in the biomedical literature, but their extent in the field of diagnostic testing is unknown. We aimed to identify nonpublication and discrepancies between registered records and publications among registered test accuracy studies.
METHODS: We identified studies evaluating a test's accuracy against a reference standard that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between January 2006 and December 2010. We included studies if their completion date was set before October 2011, allowing at least 18 months until publication. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science and contacted investigators for publications.
RESULTS: We included 418 studies, of which 224 (54%) had been published by mid-2013. Among studies that had been completed at least 30 months before our analyses, 45% were published within 30 months after their completion. Publication rates were high in studies registered after study completion (76%) and low for studies with an unknown (rather than completed) study status (36%). After we excluded these 2 categories, study duration was the only characteristic significantly associated with publication, with lower rates in studies lasting up to 1 year (39%) compared to studies of 13-24 months (62%) or longer (67%) (P = 0.01). In the 153 published studies that had been registered before completion, 49 (32%) showed discrepancies between the registry and publication regarding inclusion criteria (n = 19), test/threshold (n = 9), and outcomes (n = 32).
CONCLUSIONS: Failure to publish and selective reporting are prevalent in test accuracy studies. Their registration should be further promoted among researchers and journal editors.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24381228     DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.218149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  15 in total

1.  Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication.

Authors:  A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; D A Korevaar; T A McGrath; N van Es; R A Frank; L Cherpak; W Dang; J P Salameh; F Nguyen; C Stanley; M D F McInnes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published.

Authors:  Lee Treanor; Robert A Frank; Lindsay A Cherpak; Ana Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; Jean-Paul Salameh; Zachary Hallgrimson; Nicholas Fabiano; Trevor A McGrath; Noemie Kraaijpoel; Jason Yao; Daniel A Korevaar; Patrick M Bossuyt; Matthew D F McInnes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication.

Authors:  Daniël A Korevaar; Jérémie F Cohen; René Spijker; Ian J Saldanha; Kay Dickersin; Gianni Virgili; Lotty Hooft; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Empirical evidence for outcome reporting bias in randomized clinical trials of acupuncture: comparison of registered records and subsequent publications.

Authors:  Chun-Xiang Su; Mei Han; Jun Ren; Wen-Yuan Li; Shu-Jin Yue; Yu-Fang Hao; Jian-Ping Liu
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jérémie F Cohen; Daniël A Korevaar; Douglas G Altman; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Les Irwig; Deborah Levine; Johannes B Reitsma; Henrica C W de Vet; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

Authors:  Guowei Li; Luciana P F Abbade; Ikunna Nwosu; Yanling Jin; Alvin Leenus; Muhammad Maaz; Mei Wang; Meha Bhatt; Laura Zielinski; Nitika Sanger; Bianca Bantoto; Candice Luo; Ieta Shams; Hamnah Shahid; Yaping Chang; Guangwen Sun; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Zainab Samaan; Mitchell A H Levine; Jonathan D Adachi; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 7.  A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results.

Authors:  Rabia Bashir; Florence T Bourgeois; Adam G Dunn
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-07-03

8.  Small-study effects and time trends in diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Wynanda Annefloor van Enst; Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Eleanor A Ochodo; Joris A H de Groot; Mariska M Leeflang; Johannes B Reitsma; Rob J P M Scholten; Karel G M Moons; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Lotty Hooft
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-09

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

Authors:  W Annefloor van Enst; Eleanor Ochodo; Rob J P M Scholten; Lotty Hooft; Mariska M Leeflang
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Time to publication among completed diagnostic accuracy studies: associated with reported accuracy estimates.

Authors:  Daniël A Korevaar; Nick van Es; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jérémie F Cohen; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.