Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication

Daniël A. Korevaar, Jérémie F. Cohen, René Spijker, Ian J. Saldanha, Kay Dickersin, Gianni Virgili, Lotty Hooft, Patrick M M Bossuyt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective To assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Study Design and Setting We identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Between May and July 2015, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify corresponding full-text publications; if needed, we contacted abstract authors. Cox regression was performed to estimate associations with full-text publication, where sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were logit transformed, and DOR was log transformed. Results A full-text publication was found for 226/399 (57%) included abstracts. There was no association between reported estimates of sensitivity and full-text publication (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.98, 1.22]). The same applied to specificity (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.88, 1.14]), AUC (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.75, 1.09]), and DOR (HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94, 1.09]). Conclusion Almost half of the ARVO conference abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies did not reach full-text publication. Studies in abstracts that mentioned higher accuracy estimates were not more likely to be reported in a full-text publication.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)96-103
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume79
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Ophthalmology
Publications
Confidence Intervals
Area Under Curve
Odds Ratio
Sensitivity and Specificity
MEDLINE
ROC Curve
Research

Keywords

  • Diagnostic accuracy studies
  • Meta-analyses
  • Ophthalmology
  • Publication bias
  • Reporting bias
  • Sensitivity and specificity
  • Systematic reviews
  • Time-lag bias

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication. / Korevaar, Daniël A.; Cohen, Jérémie F.; Spijker, René; Saldanha, Ian J.; Dickersin, Kay; Virgili, Gianni; Hooft, Lotty; Bossuyt, Patrick M M.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 79, 01.11.2016, p. 96-103.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Korevaar, Daniël A. ; Cohen, Jérémie F. ; Spijker, René ; Saldanha, Ian J. ; Dickersin, Kay ; Virgili, Gianni ; Hooft, Lotty ; Bossuyt, Patrick M M. / Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016 ; Vol. 79. pp. 96-103.
@article{ad072e979b7e47cb84b6e060ea4ffb3d,
title = "Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication",
abstract = "Objective To assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Study Design and Setting We identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Between May and July 2015, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify corresponding full-text publications; if needed, we contacted abstract authors. Cox regression was performed to estimate associations with full-text publication, where sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were logit transformed, and DOR was log transformed. Results A full-text publication was found for 226/399 (57{\%}) included abstracts. There was no association between reported estimates of sensitivity and full-text publication (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 [95{\%} confidence interval {CI} 0.98, 1.22]). The same applied to specificity (HR 1.00 [95{\%} CI 0.88, 1.14]), AUC (HR 0.91 [95{\%} CI 0.75, 1.09]), and DOR (HR 1.01 [95{\%} CI 0.94, 1.09]). Conclusion Almost half of the ARVO conference abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies did not reach full-text publication. Studies in abstracts that mentioned higher accuracy estimates were not more likely to be reported in a full-text publication.",
keywords = "Diagnostic accuracy studies, Meta-analyses, Ophthalmology, Publication bias, Reporting bias, Sensitivity and specificity, Systematic reviews, Time-lag bias",
author = "Korevaar, {Dani{\"e}l A.} and Cohen, {J{\'e}r{\'e}mie F.} and Ren{\'e} Spijker and Saldanha, {Ian J.} and Kay Dickersin and Gianni Virgili and Lotty Hooft and Bossuyt, {Patrick M M}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "96--103",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication

AU - Korevaar, Daniël A.

AU - Cohen, Jérémie F.

AU - Spijker, René

AU - Saldanha, Ian J.

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Virgili, Gianni

AU - Hooft, Lotty

AU - Bossuyt, Patrick M M

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Objective To assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Study Design and Setting We identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Between May and July 2015, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify corresponding full-text publications; if needed, we contacted abstract authors. Cox regression was performed to estimate associations with full-text publication, where sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were logit transformed, and DOR was log transformed. Results A full-text publication was found for 226/399 (57%) included abstracts. There was no association between reported estimates of sensitivity and full-text publication (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.98, 1.22]). The same applied to specificity (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.88, 1.14]), AUC (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.75, 1.09]), and DOR (HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94, 1.09]). Conclusion Almost half of the ARVO conference abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies did not reach full-text publication. Studies in abstracts that mentioned higher accuracy estimates were not more likely to be reported in a full-text publication.

AB - Objective To assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Study Design and Setting We identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Between May and July 2015, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify corresponding full-text publications; if needed, we contacted abstract authors. Cox regression was performed to estimate associations with full-text publication, where sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were logit transformed, and DOR was log transformed. Results A full-text publication was found for 226/399 (57%) included abstracts. There was no association between reported estimates of sensitivity and full-text publication (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.98, 1.22]). The same applied to specificity (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.88, 1.14]), AUC (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.75, 1.09]), and DOR (HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94, 1.09]). Conclusion Almost half of the ARVO conference abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies did not reach full-text publication. Studies in abstracts that mentioned higher accuracy estimates were not more likely to be reported in a full-text publication.

KW - Diagnostic accuracy studies

KW - Meta-analyses

KW - Ophthalmology

KW - Publication bias

KW - Reporting bias

KW - Sensitivity and specificity

KW - Systematic reviews

KW - Time-lag bias

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85003481031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85003481031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 27312228

AN - SCOPUS:85003481031

VL - 79

SP - 96

EP - 103

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -