...
首页> 外文期刊>Research Synthesis Methods >Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy
【24h】

Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy

机译:在诊断准确率的系统审查中搜索实践和未发表研究的纳入

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Introduction Many diagnostic accuracy studies are never reported in full in a peer-reviewed journal. Searching for unpublished studies may avoid bias due to selective publication, enrich the power of systematic reviews, and thereby help to reduce research waste. We assessed searching practices among recent systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.Methods We extracted data from 100 non-Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy indexed in MEDLINE and published between October 2017 and January 2018 and from all 100 Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy published by December 2018, irrespective of whether meta-analysis had been performed.Results Non-Cochrane and Cochrane reviews searched a median of 4 (IQR 3-5) and 6 (IQR 5-9) databases, respectively; most often MEDLINE/PubMed (n = 100 and n = 100) and EMBASE (n = 81 and n = 100). Additional efforts to identify studies beyond searching bibliographic databases were performed in 76 and 98 reviews, most often through screening reference lists (n = 71 and n = 96), review/guideline articles (n = 18 and n = 52), or citing articles (n = 3 and n = 42). Specific sources of unpublished studies were searched in 22 and 68 reviews, for example, conference proceedings (n = 4 and n = 18), databases only containing conference abstracts (n = 2 and n = 33), or trial registries (n = 12 and n = 39). At least one unpublished study was included in 17 and 23 reviews. Overall, 39 of 2082 studies (1.9%) included in non-Cochrane reviews were unpublished, and 64 of 2780 studies (2.3%) in Cochrane reviews, most often conference abstracts (97/103).Conclusion Searching practices vary considerably across systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. Unpublished studies are a minimal fraction of the evidence included in recent reviews.
机译:引言许多诊断准确态研究从未在同行评审期刊中全额报告过。搜索未发表的研究可能会避免由于选择性出版而避免偏见,丰富系统评价的力量,从而有助于减少研究垃圾。我们评估了最近的诊断准确性的系统审查中的搜索实践。方法我们从10月和2018年10月至2018年10月至2018年1月之间发布的100个非Cochrane系统审查的数据从100月和2018年1月之间发表,并从12月发布的诊断准确性的所有100个Cochrane系统审查2018年,无论是否已经进行了荟萃分析。结果非Cochrane和Cochrane评论分别搜索了4名(IQR 3-5)和6(IQR 5-9)数据库的中位数;大多数Medline / Pubmed(n = 100和n = 100)和Embase(n = 81和n = 100)。识别超出搜索书目数据库的研究的额外努力在76和98条评论中进行,最常见于筛选参考列表(n = 71和n = 96),审查/准则文章(n = 18和n = 52),或引用文章(n = 3和n = 42)。在22和68条评论中搜索了未发表的研究的具体来源,例如,会议程序(n = 4和n = 18),仅包含会议摘要(n = 2和n = 33)或试验室(n = 12)的数据库和n = 39)。至少有一个未发布的研究包含在17和23日。总体而言,2082项研究中的39名包括在非Cochrane评论中未发表的研究(1.9%),Cochrane评论中的2780名研究(2.3%),最常见的会议摘要(97/103).Conclusion搜索实践在系统评论中差异很大。诊断准确性。未发布的研究是近期审查中包含的证据的最小分数。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Research Synthesis Methods》 |2020年第3期|343-353|共11页
  • 作者单位

    Univ Amsterdam Amsterdam UMC Dept Resp Med Amsterdam Netherlands;

    Ottawa Hosp Res Inst Clin Epidemiol Program Ottawa ON Canada;

    Univ Amsterdam Amsterdam Univ Med Ctr Dept Clin Epidemiol Biostat & Bioinformat Amsterdam Netherlands;

    Necker Enfants Malad Hosp AP HP Dept Gen Pediat & Pediat Infect Dis Paris France|Paris Descartes Univ Ctr Res Epidemiol & Stat INSERM UMR 1153 Paris France;

    Ottawa Hosp Res Inst Clin Epidemiol Program Ottawa ON Canada|Univ Ottawa Dept Radiol Ottawa ON Canada;

    Univ Utrecht Univ Med Ctr Utrecht Julius Ctr Hlth Sci & Primary Care Cochrane Netherlands Utrecht Netherlands|Univ Amsterdam Amsterdam Univ Med Ctr Med Lib Amsterdam Netherlands;

    Univ Amsterdam Amsterdam Univ Med Ctr Dept Clin Epidemiol Biostat & Bioinformat Amsterdam Netherlands;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

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