Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov 18;6(11):e012867.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012867.

Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Danielle B Rice  1   2 , Lorie A Kloda  3 , Ian Shrier  1   4 , Brett D Thombs  1   2   4   5   6   7   8
Affiliations

Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Danielle B Rice et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: Concerns have been raised regarding the quality and completeness of abstract reporting in evidence reviews, but this had not been evaluated in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Our objective was to evaluate reporting quality and completeness in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts tool.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Inclusion criteria: We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 1 January 2005 through 13 March 2016 for recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses in any language that compared a depression screening tool to a diagnosis based on clinical or validated diagnostic interview.

Data extraction: Two reviewers independently assessed quality and completeness of abstract reporting using the PRISMA for Abstracts tool with appropriate adaptations made for studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Bivariate associations of number of PRISMA for Abstracts items complied with (1) journal abstract word limit and (2) A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores of meta-analyses were also assessed.

Results: We identified 21 eligible meta-analyses. Only two of 21 included meta-analyses complied with at least half of adapted PRISMA for Abstracts items. The majority met criteria for reporting an appropriate title (95%), result interpretation (95%) and synthesis of results (76%). Meta-analyses less consistently reported databases searched (43%), associated search dates (33%) and strengths and limitations of evidence (19%). Most meta-analyses did not adequately report a clinically meaningful description of outcomes (14%), risk of bias (14%), included study characteristics (10%), study eligibility criteria (5%), registration information (5%), clear objectives (0%), report eligibility criteria (0%) or funding (0%). Overall meta-analyses quality scores were significantly associated with the number of PRISMA for Abstracts scores items reported adequately (r=0.45).

Conclusions: Quality and completeness of reporting were found to be suboptimal. Journal editors should endorse PRISMA for Abstracts and allow for flexibility in abstract word counts to improve quality of abstracts.

Keywords: PRISMA for Abstracts; diagnostic test accuracy; meta-analyses; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow Diagram of Selection of Meta-Analyses of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:267–9. 10.1001/jama.280.3.267 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG et al. . PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001419 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Hopewell S et al. . Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews. JAMA 2011;306:1981–2. 10.1001/jama.2011.1620 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Faggion CM Jr, Liu J, Huda F et al. . Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. J Periodont Res 2014;49:137–42. 10.1111/jre.12092 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kiriakou J, Pandis N, Fleming PS et al. . Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. J Dent 2013;41:1181–7. 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.09.006 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources