Literature DB >> 29564596

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

A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi1, D A Korevaar2, T A McGrath1, N van Es3, R A Frank1, L Cherpak1, W Dang1, J P Salameh4, F Nguyen1, C Stanley5, M D F McInnes6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether higher reported accuracy estimates are associated with shorter time to publication among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies.
METHODS: We included primary imaging diagnostic accuracy studies, included in meta-analyses from systematic reviews published in 2015. For each primary study, we extracted accuracy estimates, participant recruitment periods and publication dates. Our primary outcome was the association between Youden's index (sensitivity + specificity - 1, a single measure of diagnostic accuracy) and time to publication.
RESULTS: We included 55 systematic reviews and 781 primary studies. Study completion dates were missing for 238 (30%) studies. The median time from completion to publication in the remaining 543 studies was 20 months (IQR 14-29). Youden's index was negatively correlated with time from completion to publication (rho = -0.11, p = 0.009). This association remained significant in multivariable Cox regression analyses after adjusting for seven study characteristics: hazard ratio of publication was 1.09 (95% CI 1.03-1.16, p = 0.004) per unit increase for logit-transformed estimates of Youden's index. When dichotomizing Youden's index by a median split, time from completion to publication was 20 months (IQR 13-33) for studies with a Youden's index below the median, and 19 months (14-27) for studies with a Youden's index above the median (p = 0.104).
CONCLUSION: Imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with higher accuracy estimates were weakly associated with a shorter time to publication. KEY POINTS: • Higher accuracy estimates are weakly associated with shorter time to publication. • Lag in time to publication remained significant in multivariate Cox regression analyses. • No correlation between accuracy and time from submission to publication was identified.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic test, routine; Epidemiology; Meta-analysis; Publication bias; Sensitivity and specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29564596     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5354-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  32 in total

1.  No evidence of bias in the process of publication of diagnostic accuracy studies in stroke submitted as abstracts.

Authors:  Miriam Brazzelli; Stephanie C Lewis; Jonathan J Deeks; Peter A G Sandercock
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Reporting bias inflates the reputation of medical treatments: A comparison of outcomes in clinical trials and online product reviews.

Authors:  Mícheál de Barra
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects.

Authors:  J M Stern; R J Simes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13

Review 4.  The significance of the trial outcome was associated with publication rate and time to publication.

Authors:  Seung Yeon Song; Dong-Hoe Koo; Sun-Young Jung; Wonku Kang; Eun Young Kim
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 5.  Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review.

Authors:  Roberta W Scherer; Cesar Ugarte-Gil; Christine Schmucker; Joerg J Meerpohl
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  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

Review 7.  Does Publication Bias Inflate the Apparent Efficacy of Psychological Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of US National Institutes of Health-Funded Trials.

Authors:  Ellen Driessen; Steven D Hollon; Claudi L H Bockting; Pim Cuijpers; Erick H Turner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Characteristics and trends in publication of scientific papers presented at the European Congress of Radiology: a comparison between 2000 and 2010.

Authors:  Will Loughborough; Helen Dale; James H Wareham; Adam H Youssef; Mark A Rodrigues; Jonathan C L Rodrigues
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2016-08-02

9.  Positive outcomes influence the rate and time to publication, but not the impact factor of publications of clinical trial results.

Authors:  Pilar Suñé; Josep Maria Suñé; J Bruno Montoro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

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
  3 in total

1.  Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.

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

2.  Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?

Authors:  Benjamin Kendziora; Marc Dewey; Ann-Christine Stahl; Anne-Sophie Tietz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 7.034

3.  Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration.

Authors:  Jérémie F Cohen; Jonathan J Deeks; Lotty Hooft; Jean-Paul Salameh; Daniël A Korevaar; Constantine Gatsonis; Sally Hopewell; Harriet A Hunt; Chris J Hyde; Mariska M Leeflang; Petra Macaskill; Trevor A McGrath; David Moher; Johannes B Reitsma; Anne W S Rutjes; Yemisi Takwoingi; Marcello Tonelli; Penny Whiting; Brian H Willis; Brett Thombs; Patrick M Bossuyt; Matthew D F McInnes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2021-03-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.