Reporting completeness and transparency of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: A comparison of meta-analyses published before and after the PRISMA statement
Reporting completeness and transparency of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: A comparison of meta-analyses published before and after the PRISMA statement
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.06.007
复制
发表时间：
2016-08-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Thombs, Brett D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rice, Danielle B.;Kloda, Lorie A.;Thombs, Brett D.
目的：荟萃分析进行严格和报告完整和透明可以提供准确的证据，告知最好的医疗保健决策。指南制定者对现有证据对抑郁症筛查工具诊断准确性的实用性提出了担忧。本研究的目的是评估抑郁症筛查工具诊断准确性meta分析报告的透明度和完整性，该meta分析使用PRISMA工具进行诊断测试准确性meta分析。方法：我们从2005年1月1日至2016年3月13日检索MEDLINE和PsycINFO，以获取最近关于抑郁症筛查工具诊断准确性的任何语言的meta分析。两名审稿人独立评估了使用PRISMA工具报告的透明度，并对诊断测试准确性的研究进行了适当的调整。结果：我们确定了21项符合条件的荟萃分析。21项荟萃分析中有12项符合至少50%的PRISMA调整项目。在30个调整后的PRISMA项目中，11个项目被纳入meta分析的>= 80%，3个项目被纳入meta分析的50-79%，7个项目被纳入meta分析的25-45%，9个项目被纳入meta分析
Objective: Meta-analyses that are conducted rigorously and reported completely and transparently can provide accurate evidence to inform the best possible healthcare decisions. Guideline makers have raised concerns about the utility of existing evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. The objective of our study was to evaluate the transparency and completeness of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools using the PRISMA tool adapted for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses.Methods: We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2016 for recent meta analyses in any language on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. Two reviewers independently assessed the transparency in reporting using the PRISMA tool with appropriate adaptations made for studies of diagnostic test accuracy.Results: We identified 21 eligible meta-analyses. Twelve of 21 meta-analyses complied with at least 50% of adapted PRISMA items. Of 30 adapted PRISMA items, 11 were fulfilled by >= 80% of included meta-analyses, 3 by 50-79% of meta-analyses, 7 by 25-45% of meta-analyses, and 9 by