Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature

between 1995 and 2006

Class1: Ana Costa, André Sena, Duarte Pinto, Inês Brandão, João Silva, Lídia Sousa, Luís Barros, Márcia Marinho, Maria Rocha, Pedro Falcão, Rafael Silva, Sara Tapa, Susana Franco.

Supervisors: Altamiro da Costa Pereira, MD, PhD; Cristina Santos, MD, PhD

Introduction to MedicinePorto Faculty of Medicine 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroductionIntroduction Conclusions

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD

statement for reporting studies of diagnostic

accuracy: explanation and elaboration.

Clin Chem 2003

Deeks J. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic

reviews of diagnostic tests. BMJ 2001

Smidt N, Rutjes A WS, et al. Reproducibility of the STARD

checklist: an instrument to assess the quality of

reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

BMC 2006

Cunningham, F.Gary. Williams obstetrics, 26 edição (2005)

Berek, Jonathan S. Novak’s gynecology 12 edição (1996)

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

Annuals of internal Medicine. 2003Deeks J. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.

BMJ 2001

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroductionIntroduction Conclusions

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD

statement for reporting studies of diagnostic

accuracy: explanation and elaboration.

Clin Chem 2003

Deeks J. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic

reviews of diagnostic tests. BMJ 2001

Smidt N, Rutjes A WS, et al. Reproducibility of the STARD

checklist: an instrument to assess the quality of

reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

BMC 2006

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

ObjectivesObjectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResults ConclusionsIntroduction

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

ObjectivesObjectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResults ConclusionsIntroduction

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Articles’ search and

selection

Articles’ evaluation

Statistical analyze

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

The query

Articles’ search Articles’ search

and selectionand selection

Articles’ evaluation

Statistical analyze

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

The query

Articles’ search Articles’ search

and selectionand selection

Articles’ evaluation

Statistical analyze

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Limits and selection criteria

Periods (one for each selector): - 2006 to 2006- 2005 to 2005- 2004 to 2004- 2000 to 2003- 1995 to 1999

Language restriction- English- Portuguese

Humans

Inclusion

- report a study of diagnostic accuracy

- the diagnostic test(s) is(are) used in obstetrics and/or gynecology

- abstract is available

Exclusion- is a clinical trial, a letter, an editorial, a practice

guideline, a meta-analyse or a review

Articles’ search Articles’ search

and selectionand selection

Articles’ evaluation

Statistical analyze

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Limits and selection criteria

Articles’ search Articles’ search

and selectionand selection

Articles’ evaluation

Statistical analyze

Inclusion

- report a study of diagnostic accuracy

- the diagnostic test(s) is(are) used in obstetrics and/or gynecology

- abstract is available

Exclusion- is a clinical trial, a letter, an editorial, a practice

guideline, a meta-analyse or a review

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

2006200620052005200420042000-20032000-2003

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Samples

1995-19991995-1999

10102020303040405050

Articles’ search Articles’ search

and selectionand selection

Articles’ evaluation

Statistical analyze

Articles in the Articles in the final samplefinal sample

A random sample of 10 articles is obtained from each period

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Evaluation with the STARD

5050

Articles’ search and

selection

Articles’ evaluationArticles’ evaluation

Statistical analyze

Articles in the Articles in the final samplefinal sample

Each article is submitted to two independent evaluations (according to the STARD parameters)

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Analyze in SPSS

Articles’ search and

selection

Articles’ evaluation

Statistical analyzeStatistical analyze

Data from the evaluation is analyzed in SPSS

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Data from the evaluation is analyzed in SPSS

Objectives MethodsMethods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Outcome of results

Articles’ search and

selection

Articles’ evaluation

Statistical analyzeStatistical analyze

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ selection

From articles’ analyzes

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ From articles’ selectionselection

From articles’ analyzes

Final selection states

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ From articles’ selectionselection

From articles’ analyzes

Causes of exclusion

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ From articles’ selectionselection

From articles’ analyzes

Causes of exclusion

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ selection

From articles’ From articles’ analyzesanalyzes

Agreement between evaluators

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ selection

From articles’ From articles’ analyzesanalyzes

Presence of the items in the articles But it was revealed an evolution in the report of items 10, 13, 20

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ selection

From articles’ From articles’ analyzesanalyzes

The evolution

The only difference with statistical significant is between 1995-1990 and 2005

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ selection

From articles’ From articles’ analyzesanalyzes

Relation between articles’ Score and the Impact Factor

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

From articles’ selection

From articles’ From articles’ analyzesanalyzes

Relation between articles’ Score and the Impact Factor

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction ConclusionsConclusions

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction ConclusionsConclusions

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007

Objectives Methods AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsResultsIntroduction Conclusions

Acknowledgments to…

Evolution of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy in obstetrics and gynecology literature between 1995 and 2006: 2006/2007