skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Clinical chemistry (Baltimore, Md.), 2017-08, Vol.63 (8), p.1353-1362 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

2017 American Association for Clinical Chemistry. ;COPYRIGHT 2017 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc. ;ISSN: 0009-9147 ;EISSN: 1530-8561 ;DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.271544 ;PMID: 28606911

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
  • Author: McGrath, Trevor A ; McInnes, Matthew D F ; van Es, Nick ; Leeflang, Mariska M G ; Korevaar, Daniël A ; Bossuyt, Patrick M M
  • Subjects: Humans ; Management ; Medical Laboratory Science - standards ; Medical research ; Medicine, Experimental ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Reproducibility of Results
  • Is Part Of: Clinical chemistry (Baltimore, Md.), 2017-08, Vol.63 (8), p.1353-1362
  • Description: We wished to assess the frequency of overinterpretation in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. MEDLINE was searched through PubMed from December 2015 to January 2016. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in English were included if they reported one or more metaanalyses of accuracy estimates. We built and piloted a list of 10 items that represent actual overinterpretation in the abstract and/or full-text conclusion, and a list of 9 items that represent potential overinterpretation. Two investigators independently used the items to score each included systematic review, with disagreements resolved by consensus. We included 112 systematic reviews. The majority had a positive conclusion regarding the accuracy or clinical usefulness of the investigated test in the abstract (n = 83; 74%) and full-text (n = 83; 74%). Of the 112 reviews, 81 (72%) contained at least 1 actual form of overinterpretation in the abstract, and 77 (69%) in the full-text. This was most often a "positive conclusion, not reflecting the reported summary accuracy estimates," in 55 (49%) abstracts and 56 (50%) full-texts and a "positive conclusion, not taking high risk of bias and/or applicability concerns into account," in 47 abstracts (42%) and 26 full-texts (23%). Of these 112 reviews, 107 (96%) contained a form of potential overinterpretation, most frequently "nonrecommended statistical methods for metaanalysis performed" (n = 57; 51%). Most recent systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies present positive conclusions and a majority contain a form of overinterpretation. This may lead to unjustified optimism about test performance and erroneous clinical decisions and recommendations.
  • Publisher: England: American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 0009-9147
    EISSN: 1530-8561
    DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.271544
    PMID: 28606911
  • Source: MEDLINE
    ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait