Cooperation and basic characteristics of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on diagnostic test registered in PROSPERO platform_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

NIU Jingjing ¹ , LIU Rui ² , WANG Panjie ² , SUN Yue ^3,4 , SHAO Hongsheng ⁵ , GOU Lingzhu ⁶ , CHEN Ji ^3,4 , LEI Junqiang ⁷ ,  TIAN Jinhui ^4,8

1. Department of Radiology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
2. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
3. Evidence-based Nursing Center, School of Nursing of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
4. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
5. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
6. Department of Radiology, Gansu Province Hospital Rehabilitation Center, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
7. The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
8. Key Laboratory of Clinical Translational Research and Evidence-based Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

TIAN Jinhui, Email: tjh996@163.com

Keywords：

PROSPERO; Diagnostic test; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Register

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201806053

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objectives To analyze the cooperation and basic characteristics on systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) in diagnostic test registered in PROSPERO platform, in order to provide reference for registering and preparing the SRs/MAs on diagnostic test.Methods We searched PROSPERO platform from inception to November 12^th, 2017, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The forest figure was prepared by STATA 13.0 software. The figure of network of authors, organizations and countries were prepared by NetDraw software.Results A total of 240 SRs/MAs in diagnostic test were included. There was a serious imbalance in the quantity of the distribution of authors (1 050), organizations (360) and countries (34). These SRs/MAs in diagnostic test were related to 21 systematic diseases, with cancer ranking the first (52, 22%). Tissue biopsy was the most used gold standard, and imaging diagnosis was the most used diagnostic test. The most commonly retrieved English databases were PubMed, EMbase The Cochrane Library, while the Chinese databases were CNKI, WanFang Data and CBM. The search strategy were reported in 105 (43.8%) SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. The QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies in 159 (66.3%) SRs/MAs in diagnostic test, and 105 (43.8%) SRs/MAs were supported by funding.Conclusions The absolute quantity of SRs/MAs in diagnostic test is still minimal. There are relationships among different authors, organizations and countries. The researcher should focus on the effective sizes and statistical methods in future.

Citation： NIU Jingjing, LIU Rui, WANG Panjie, SUN Yue, SHAO Hongsheng, GOU Lingzhu, CHEN Ji, LEI Junqiang, TIAN Jinhui. Cooperation and basic characteristics of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on diagnostic test registered in PROSPERO platform. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(3): 353-360. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201806053 Copy

1.	Chien PF, Khan KS, Siassakos D. Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO. BJOG, 2012, 119(8): 903-905.
2.	Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO? J Orthod, 2017, 44(4): 249-255.
3.	周建国, 吕水萍, 张钰, 等. 中国学者在PROSPERO平台注册系统评价/Meta分析的现状调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(4): 466-470.
4.	兰颖, 兰蕾, 曾芳, 等. PROSPERO系统评价注册平台针灸资源现状分析. 中国针灸, 2015, 35(2): 173-175.
5.	Tricco AC, Cogo E, Page MJ, et al. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 79: 46-54.
6.	Ruano J, Gómez-García F, Gay-Mimbrera J, et al. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 43.
7.	Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30, 000 records and counting. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 32.
8.	Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 100: 103-110.
9.	Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open, 2017, 7(2): e012545.
10.	田金徽, 陈杰峰, 主编. 诊断试验系统评价/Meta分析指导手册. 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2015.
11.	Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2011, 11: 163.
12.	Liu D, Jin J, Tian J, et al. Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis. PLoS One, 2015, 10(4): e0120911.
13.	Meads CA, Davenport CF. Quality assessment of diagnostic before-after studies: development of methodology in the context of a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2009, 9: 3.
14.	Ge L, Wang JC, Li JL, et al. The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China. PLoS One, 2014, 9(1): e85908.
15.	吴景玲, 潘蓓, 葛龙, 等. ANOVA模型实现贝叶斯方法的诊断试验准确性网状Meta分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(9): 1111-1116.
16.	吴景玲, 葛龙, 张俊华, 等. 多个诊断性试验准确性的比较: 网状Meta分析方法介绍. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(8): 987-992.
17.	邵鸿生, 孙月, 马文娟, 等. 不同类型和磁场强度心脏磁共振成像诊断冠状动脉疾病准确性的Meta分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(04): 315-325.
18.	陈耀龙, 姚亮, 杜亮, 等. GRADE在诊断准确性试验系统评价中应用的原理、方法、挑战及发展趋势. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(11): 1402-1406.
19.	姚亮, 陈耀龙, 杜亮, 等. GRADE在诊断准确性试验系统评价中应用的实例解析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(11): 1407-1412.
20.	张永刚, 杨乐天, 杨鑫, 等. 诊断准确性试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范(PRISMA-DTA)的解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(9): 1007-1016.
21.	王梦书, 李乐, 张红霞, 等. 影像诊断系统评价被临床实践指南引用情况调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(3): 341-347.

1. Chien PF, Khan KS, Siassakos D. Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO. BJOG, 2012, 119(8): 903-905.
2. Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO? J Orthod, 2017, 44(4): 249-255.
3. 周建国, 吕水萍, 张钰, 等. 中国学者在PROSPERO平台注册系统评价/Meta分析的现状调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(4): 466-470.
4. 兰颖, 兰蕾, 曾芳, 等. PROSPERO系统评价注册平台针灸资源现状分析. 中国针灸, 2015, 35(2): 173-175.
5. Tricco AC, Cogo E, Page MJ, et al. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 79: 46-54.
6. Ruano J, Gómez-García F, Gay-Mimbrera J, et al. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 43.
7. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30, 000 records and counting. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 32.
8. Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 100: 103-110.
9. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open, 2017, 7(2): e012545.
10. 田金徽, 陈杰峰, 主编. 诊断试验系统评价/Meta分析指导手册. 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2015.
11. Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2011, 11: 163.
12. Liu D, Jin J, Tian J, et al. Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis. PLoS One, 2015, 10(4): e0120911.
13. Meads CA, Davenport CF. Quality assessment of diagnostic before-after studies: development of methodology in the context of a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2009, 9: 3.
14. Ge L, Wang JC, Li JL, et al. The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China. PLoS One, 2014, 9(1): e85908.
15. 吴景玲, 潘蓓, 葛龙, 等. ANOVA模型实现贝叶斯方法的诊断试验准确性网状Meta分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(9): 1111-1116.
16. 吴景玲, 葛龙, 张俊华, 等. 多个诊断性试验准确性的比较: 网状Meta分析方法介绍. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(8): 987-992.
17. 邵鸿生, 孙月, 马文娟, 等. 不同类型和磁场强度心脏磁共振成像诊断冠状动脉疾病准确性的Meta分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(04): 315-325.
18. 陈耀龙, 姚亮, 杜亮, 等. GRADE在诊断准确性试验系统评价中应用的原理、方法、挑战及发展趋势. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(11): 1402-1406.
19. 姚亮, 陈耀龙, 杜亮, 等. GRADE在诊断准确性试验系统评价中应用的实例解析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(11): 1407-1412.
20. 张永刚, 杨乐天, 杨鑫, 等. 诊断准确性试验的系统评价/Meta分析报告规范(PRISMA-DTA)的解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(9): 1007-1016.
21. 王梦书, 李乐, 张红霞, 等. 影像诊断系统评价被临床实践指南引用情况调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(3): 341-347.

Previous Article
Efficacy of massage in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a meta-analysis
Next Article
An overview of systematic reviews on Tuina from 2013 to 2017

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Cooperation and basic characteristics of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on diagnostic test registered in PROSPERO platform

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content