Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin"
- PMID: 23360738
- DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120527
Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin"
Abstract
Purpose: To estimate the frequency of distorted presentation and overinterpretation of results in diagnostic accuracy studies.
Materials and methods: MEDLINE was searched for diagnostic accuracy studies published between January and June 2010 in journals with an impact factor of 4 or higher. Articles included were primary studies of the accuracy of one or more tests in which the results were compared with a clinical reference standard. Two authors scored each article independently by using a pretested data-extraction form to identify actual overinterpretation and practices that facilitate overinterpretation, such as incomplete reporting of study methods or the use of inappropriate methods (potential overinterpretation). The frequency of overinterpretation was estimated in all studies and in a subgroup of imaging studies.
Results: Of the 126 articles, 39 (31%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 23, 39) contained a form of actual overinterpretation, including 29 (23%; 95% CI: 16, 30) with an overly optimistic abstract, 10 (8%; 96% CI: 3%, 13%) with a discrepancy between the study aim and conclusion, and eight with conclusions based on selected subgroups. In our analysis of potential overinterpretation, authors of 89% (95% CI: 83%, 94%) of the studies did not include a sample size calculation, 88% (95% CI: 82%, 94%) did not state a test hypothesis, and 57% (95% CI: 48%, 66%) did not report CIs of accuracy measurements. In 43% (95% CI: 34%, 52%) of studies, authors were unclear about the intended role of the test, and in 3% (95% CI: 0%, 6%) they used inappropriate statistical tests. A subgroup analysis of imaging studies showed 16 (30%; 95% CI: 17%, 43%) and 53 (100%; 95% CI: 92%, 100%) contained forms of actual and potential overinterpretation, respectively.
Conclusion: Overinterpretation and misreporting of results in diagnostic accuracy studies is frequent in journals with high impact factors.
Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120527/-/DC1.
© RSNA, 2013.
Comment in
-
Spin in radiology research: let the data speak for themselves.Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):324-5. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130108. Radiology. 2013. PMID: 23610092 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals.Clin Chem. 2020 Jul 1;66(7):915-924. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa093. Clin Chem. 2020. PMID: 32433721
-
Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.Radiology. 2005 May;235(2):347-53. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2352040507. Epub 2005 Mar 15. Radiology. 2005. PMID: 15770041
-
Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: assessment of frequency and associated factors.Radiology. 2011 May;259(2):479-86. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101500. Epub 2011 Mar 8. Radiology. 2011. PMID: 21386051
-
Are Study and Journal Characteristics Reliable Indicators of "Truth" in Imaging Research?Radiology. 2018 Apr;287(1):215-223. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170586. Epub 2017 Nov 27. Radiology. 2018. PMID: 29173122 Review.
-
[New guidelines for better documentation of survey methodology and results].Lakartidningen. 2005 Mar 7-13;102(10):748, 750, 752-3. Lakartidningen. 2005. PMID: 15839166 Review. Swedish.
Cited by
-
Rational development and application of biomarkers in the field of autoimmunity: A conceptual framework guiding clinicians and researchers.J Transl Autoimmun. 2022 Mar 6;5:100151. doi: 10.1016/j.jtauto.2022.100151. eCollection 2022. J Transl Autoimmun. 2022. PMID: 35309737 Free PMC article. Review.
-
REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.BMJ Open. 2024 Apr 23;14(4):e085293. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085293. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 38658008 Free PMC article.
-
Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2595-2599. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708286114. Epub 2018 Mar 12. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018. PMID: 29531032 Free PMC article. Review.
-
State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol.BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 29;7(3):e014749. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014749. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28360252 Free PMC article.
-
Spin in dental publications: a scoping review.Braz Oral Res. 2024 Jul 12;38:e065. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0065. eCollection 2024. Braz Oral Res. 2024. PMID: 39016371 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical