首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
【24h】

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

机译:诊断测试准确性的荟萃分析中的出版物偏倚调查:一项荟萃流行病学研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background The validity of a meta-analysis can be understood better in light of the possible impact of publication bias. The majority of the methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects are developed for meta-analyses of intervention studies, leaving authors of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews with limited guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate if and how publication bias was assessed in meta-analyses of DTA, and to compare the results of various statistical methods used to assess publication bias. Methods A systematic search was initiated to identify DTA reviews with a meta-analysis published between September 2011 and January 2012. We extracted all information about publication bias from the reviews and the two-by-two tables. Existing statistical methods for the detection of publication bias were applied on data from the included studies. Results Out of 1,335 references, 114 reviews could be included. Publication bias was explicitly mentioned in 75 reviews (65.8%) and 47 of these had performed statistical methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects: 6 by drawing funnel plots, 16 by statistical testing and 25 by applying both methods. The applied tests were Egger’s test (n?=?18), Deeks’ test (n?=?12), Begg’s test (n?=?5), both the Egger and Begg tests (n?=?4), and other tests (n?=?2). Our own comparison of the results of Begg’s, Egger’s and Deeks’ test for 92 meta-analyses indicated that up to 34% of the results did not correspond with one another. Conclusions The majority of DTA review authors mention or investigate publication bias. They mainly use suboptimal methods like the Begg and Egger tests that are not developed for DTA meta-analyses. Our comparison of the Begg, Egger and Deeks tests indicated that these tests do give different results and thus are not interchangeable. Deeks’ test is recommended for DTA meta-analyses and should be preferred.
机译:背景根据出版物偏倚的可能影响,可以更好地理解荟萃分析的有效性。大多数研究以较小的研究效果为依据的偏倚研究方法,都是为进行干预研究的荟萃分析而开发的,而诊断测试准确性(DTA)系统评价的作者则受到了有限的指导。这项研究的目的是评估在DTA的荟萃分析中是否以及如何评估出版偏倚,并比较用于评估出版偏倚的各种统计方法的结果。方法我们开始进行系统搜索,以找出2011年9月至2012年1月之间发布的荟萃分析来确定DTA评论。我们从评论和两两表格中提取了有关出版偏见的所有信息。用于检测出版偏倚的现有统计方法应用于来自纳入研究的数据。结果在1,335条参考文献中,可以包括114条评论。在75篇评论(65.8%)中明确提到了出版偏倚,其中47篇采用了统计方法以较小的研究效果来研究出版偏倚:通过绘制漏斗图6种,通过统计测试16种,同时使用这两种方法进行25种。应用的测试是Egger检验(n?=?18),Deeks检验(n?=?12),Begg检验(n?=?5),Egger和Begg测试(n?=?4)以及其他测试(n?=?2)。我们对Begg,Egger和Deeks的92项荟萃分析的结果进行的比较表明,多达34%的结果彼此不符。结论大多数DTA评论作者提到或调查了出版偏见。他们主要使用不是为DTA荟萃分析开发的次优方法,例如Begg和Egger检验。我们对Begg,Egger和Deeks测试的比较表明,这些测试确实给出了不同的结果,因此不可互换。对于DTA荟萃分析,建议使用Deeks测试,并且应优先选择Deeks测试。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号