Context.-No studies to our knowledge have investigated citations and utilization of meta-analysis in diagnostic pathology (DP).Objective.-To characterize meta-analyses in DP compared with meta-analyses in medicine.Design.-We searched PubMed for meta-analyses in 12 major DP journals without specifying years and in 4 major medicine journals in both 2006 and 2011. We compared articles' adjusted citation ratios (ACRs), defined as an article's citation count divided by the mean citations for the meta-analysis, review, and original research articles published in the same journal in the same year.Results.-Forty-one of 76 DP articles, 74 of 125 medicine articles in 2011, and 52 of 83 medicine articles in 2006 were qualified meta-analyses as identified by PubMed. The ACRs of DP meta-analysis articles were higher than those of original research articles (2.62 6 2.31 versus 0.92 6 0.84, P , .001) and similar to those of review articles in 2006 (2.62 6 2.31 versus 1.95 6 1.59, P ¼ .50), but they were similar to both in 2011 (1.85 6 1.39 versus 0.99 6 1.43, P ¼ .11; 1.85 6 1.39 versus 1.12 6 1.43, P ¼ .21, respectively). Diagnostic pathology and medicine meta-analyses had similar ACRs (1.85 6 1.39 versus 1.57 6 1.35 in 2011, P ¼ .60; and 2.62 6 2.31 versus 1.85 6 1.90 in 2006, P ¼ .50, respectively). However, although DP journals published fewer metaanalyses (0.97% versus 6.66% in 2011 and 0.67% versus 4.40% in 2006, P , .001 for both), they published more meta-analyses using both original and published data than medicine (21.95% versus 1.59%, P , .001). They also published more meta-analyses per year in 2011-2014 than in 2000-2010 (6.4 6 1.29 versus 1.36 6 1.03 articles per year, P , .001).Conclusions.-We found underutilization of meta-analyses in DP, despite their high ACRs and recently increased utilization. More DP meta-analyses are needed.(Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:1302-1307; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0461-OA) M eta-analyses are an important type of study in medical research. They combine data from a wide set of sources, summarizing a whole body of research, thereby making them an effective way to quickly learn about an area of research.1 Meta-analyses also increase the statistical power of a study by increasing the sample size.2 With a larger overall sample size and rigorous heterogeneity test, meta-analyses help reduce biases of individual studies because they pool studies together, clarify individual study results, and validate or refute previous findings.3 Generally, scientific literature is biased toward positive results, which makes meta-analyses particularly important because of their ability to authenticate and disprove individual studies. 4 A specific guideline on conducting meta-analyses, namely, PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses), has been proposed to improve the quality of meta-analyses. 5 The number of published metaanalysis articles has been consistently increasing on a yearly basis owing to their gradually recognized value. 5The field of diagnostic pathology (DP) ...

- Meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology had lower reporting quality than those in medicine. Reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses is linked to publication year and first author's location, but not to journal publisher's location or article's adjusted citation ratios. More research and education on meta-analysis methodology may improve the reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses.

No abstract