Claire Wilson1, Daniel Kerr2, Anna Noel-Storr3, Terence J Quinn1. 1. Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 2. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Biomarkers are of increasing interest in dementia research. Studies describing favourable accuracy of various dementia tests have influenced research, guidelines and diagnostic criteria. Publication bias is known to compromise reports on efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Traditional methods of quantifying publication bias are not suited to reviews of diagnostic tests. We aimed to describe rates and predictors of publication of dementia test accuracy studies presented at scientific meetings. METHODS: We chose three exemplar scientific meetings from 2009. Two independent researchers assessed conference proceedings and selected all abstracts relating to dementia diagnostics. We recorded basic descriptors and dichotomised results as 'positive' or 'neutral'. We assessed publication status using electronic literature databases and contacting lead authors. We described univariate and multivariate predictors of publication status using logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: From n = 2257 abstracts, we identified n = 250 (11%) abstracts relating to dementia diagnostics. The majority n = 209 (84%) reported positive results. Only 97 (39%) of these studies are published. Univariate predictors of publication status included positive result (p = 0.042), North American or European authors (p = 0.047), higher number of participants (p = 0.008) and use of a 'biomarker' test (p = 0.035). On multivariate analysis, only increasing number of participants was independently associated with publication (p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Our strategy did not prove or disprove a publication bias effect in dementia test accuracy studies. The substantial proportion of 'positive' studies may point to a downstream 'submission bias' effect on decision to submit data to meetings. Modest rate of publication of dementia test accuracy studies is concerning, and publication bias remains possible.
OBJECTIVE: Biomarkers are of increasing interest in dementia research. Studies describing favourable accuracy of various dementia tests have influenced research, guidelines and diagnostic criteria. Publication bias is known to compromise reports on efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Traditional methods of quantifying publication bias are not suited to reviews of diagnostic tests. We aimed to describe rates and predictors of publication of dementia test accuracy studies presented at scientific meetings. METHODS: We chose three exemplar scientific meetings from 2009. Two independent researchers assessed conference proceedings and selected all abstracts relating to dementia diagnostics. We recorded basic descriptors and dichotomised results as 'positive' or 'neutral'. We assessed publication status using electronic literature databases and contacting lead authors. We described univariate and multivariate predictors of publication status using logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: From n = 2257 abstracts, we identified n = 250 (11%) abstracts relating to dementia diagnostics. The majority n = 209 (84%) reported positive results. Only 97 (39%) of these studies are published. Univariate predictors of publication status included positive result (p = 0.042), North American or European authors (p = 0.047), higher number of participants (p = 0.008) and use of a 'biomarker' test (p = 0.035). On multivariate analysis, only increasing number of participants was independently associated with publication (p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Our strategy did not prove or disprove a publication bias effect in dementia test accuracy studies. The substantial proportion of 'positive' studies may point to a downstream 'submission bias' effect on decision to submit data to meetings. Modest rate of publication of dementia test accuracy studies is concerning, and publication bias remains possible.
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
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
Authors: Lucy C Beishon; Emma Elliott; Tuuli M Hietamies; Riona Mc Ardle; Aoife O'Mahony; Amy R Elliott; Terry J Quinn Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-04-08
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
Authors: Roberta W Scherer; Joerg J Meerpohl; Nadine Pfeifer; Christine Schmucker; Guido Schwarzer; Erik von Elm Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-11-20
Authors: Daniël A Korevaar; Jean-Paul Salameh; Yasaman Vali; Jérémie F Cohen; Matthew D F McInnes; René Spijker; Patrick M Bossuyt Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 5.273
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