Danielle B Rice1, Lorie A Kloda2, Ian Shrier3, Brett D Thombs4. 1. Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 2. Libraries, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. 3. Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 4. Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: brett.thombs@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyses that are conducted rigorously and reported completely and transparently can provide accurate evidence to inform the best possible healthcare decisions. Guideline makers have raised concerns about the utility of existing evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. The objective of our study was to evaluate the transparency and completeness of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools using the PRISMA tool adapted for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2016 for recent meta-analyses in any language on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. Two reviewers independently assessed the transparency in reporting using the PRISMA tool with appropriate adaptations made for studies of diagnostic test accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 21 eligible meta-analyses. Twelve of 21 meta-analyses complied with at least 50% of adapted PRISMA items. Of 30 adapted PRISMA items, 11 were fulfilled by ≥80% of included meta-analyses, 3 by 50-79% of meta-analyses, 7 by 25-45% of meta-analyses, and 9 by <25%. On average, post-PRISMA meta-analyses complied with 17 of 30 items compared to 13 of 30 items pre-PRISMA. CONCLUSIONS: Deficiencies in the transparency of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic test accuracy of depression screening tools of meta-analyses were identified. Authors, reviewers, and editors should adhere to the PRISMA statement to improve the reporting of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools.
OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyses that are conducted rigorously and reported completely and transparently can provide accurate evidence to inform the best possible healthcare decisions. Guideline makers have raised concerns about the utility of existing evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. The objective of our study was to evaluate the transparency and completeness of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools using the PRISMA tool adapted for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2016 for recent meta-analyses in any language on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. Two reviewers independently assessed the transparency in reporting using the PRISMA tool with appropriate adaptations made for studies of diagnostic test accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 21 eligible meta-analyses. Twelve of 21 meta-analyses complied with at least 50% of adapted PRISMA items. Of 30 adapted PRISMA items, 11 were fulfilled by ≥80% of included meta-analyses, 3 by 50-79% of meta-analyses, 7 by 25-45% of meta-analyses, and 9 by <25%. On average, post-PRISMA meta-analyses complied with 17 of 30 items compared to 13 of 30 items pre-PRISMA. CONCLUSIONS: Deficiencies in the transparency of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic test accuracy of depression screening tools of meta-analyses were identified. Authors, reviewers, and editors should adhere to the PRISMA statement to improve the reporting of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools.
Authors: Yin Wu; Brooke Levis; John P A Ioannidis; Andrea Benedetti; Brett D Thombs Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Brooke Levis; Andrea Benedetti; Kira E Riehm; Nazanin Saadat; Alexander W Levis; Marleine Azar; Danielle B Rice; Matthew J Chiovitti; Tatiana A Sanchez; Pim Cuijpers; Simon Gilbody; John P A Ioannidis; Lorie A Kloda; Dean McMillan; Scott B Patten; Ian Shrier; Russell J Steele; Roy C Ziegelstein; Dickens H Akena; Bruce Arroll; Liat Ayalon; Hamid R Baradaran; Murray Baron; Anna Beraldi; Charles H Bombardier; Peter Butterworth; Gregory Carter; Marcos H Chagas; Juliana C N Chan; Rushina Cholera; Neerja Chowdhary; Kerrie Clover; Yeates Conwell; Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel; Jaime Delgadillo; Jesse R Fann; Felix H Fischer; Benjamin Fischler; Daniel Fung; Bizu Gelaye; Felicity Goodyear-Smith; Catherine G Greeno; Brian J Hall; John Hambridge; Patricia A Harrison; Ulrich Hegerl; Leanne Hides; Stevan E Hobfoll; Marie Hudson; Thomas Hyphantis; Masatoshi Inagaki; Khalida Ismail; Nathalie Jetté; Mohammad E Khamseh; Kim M Kiely; Femke Lamers; Shen-Ing Liu; Manote Lotrakul; Sonia R Loureiro; Bernd Löwe; Laura Marsh; Anthony McGuire; Sherina Mohd Sidik; Tiago N Munhoz; Kumiko Muramatsu; Flávia L Osório; Vikram Patel; Brian W Pence; Philippe Persoons; Angelo Picardi; Alasdair G Rooney; Iná S Santos; Juwita Shaaban; Abbey Sidebottom; Adam Simning; Lesley Stafford; Sharon Sung; Pei Lin Lynnette Tan; Alyna Turner; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Henk C van Weert; Paul A Vöhringer; Jennifer White; Mary A Whooley; Kirsty Winkley; Mitsuhiko Yamada; Yuying Zhang; Brett D Thombs Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 10.671
Authors: Stephen J McCall; Mahrukh Imran; Lars G Hemkens; Kimberly Mc Cord; Linda Kwakkenbos; Margaret Sampson; Sena Jawad; Merrick Zwarenstein; Clare Relton; Sinéad M Langan; David Moher; Ole Fröbert; Brett D Thombs; Chris Gale; Edmund Juszczak Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 6.437