Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Methods and reporting of systematic reviews of comparative accuracy were deficient: a methodological survey and
Yemisi Takwoingi1, Christopher Partlett2, Richard D Riley3
1Test Evaluation Research Group, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Objective:
The objective of this study was to examine methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses which compare diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of multiple index tests, identify good practice, and develop guidance for better reporting.
Study Design And Setting:
Methodological survey of 127 comparative or multiple tests reviews published in 74 different general medical and specialist journals. We summarized methods and reporting characteristics that are likely to differ between reviews of a single test and comparative reviews. We then developed guidance to enhance reporting of test comparisons in DTA reviews.
Results:
Of 127 reviews, 16 (13%) reviews restricted study selection and test comparisons to comparative accuracy studies while the remaining 111 (87%) reviews included any study type. Fifty-three reviews (42%) statistically compared test accuracy with only 18 (34%) of these using recommended methods. Reporting of several items-in particular the role of the index tests, test comparison strategy, and limitations of indirect comparisons (i.e., comparisons involving any study type)-was deficient in many reviews. Five reviews with exemplary methods and reporting were identified.
Conclusion:
Reporting quality of reviews which evaluate and compare multiple tests is poor. The guidance developed, complemented with the exemplars, can assist review authors in producing better quality comparative reviews.
More Related Videos
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
07:25In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis
Published on: May 4, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Analysis: Overview
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...