Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Reporting completeness and transparency of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: A comparison of meta-analyses published before and after the PRISMA statement. | LitMetric
Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address:
Published: August 2016
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
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 <25%. On average, post-PRISMA meta-analyses complied with 17 of 30 items compared to 13 of 30 items pre-PRISMA.
Conclusions: Deficiencies in the transparency of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic test accuracy of depression screening tools of meta-analyses were identified. Authors, reviewers, and editors should adhere to the PRISMA statement to improve the reporting of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools.
