BackgroundThe validity of a meta-analysis can be understood better in light of the possible impact of publication bias. The majority of the methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects are developed for meta-analyses of intervention studies, leaving authors of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews with limited guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate if and how publication bias was assessed in meta-analyses of DTA, and to compare the results of various statistical methods used to assess publication bias.MethodsA systematic search was initiated to identify DTA reviews with a meta-analysis published between September 2011 and January 2012. We extracted all information about publication bias from the reviews and the two-by-two tables. Existing statistical methods for the detection of publication bias were applied on data from the included studies.ResultsOut of 1,335 references, 114 reviews could be included. Publication bias was explicitly mentioned in 75 reviews (65.8%) and 47 of these had performed statistical methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects: 6 by drawing funnel plots, 16 by statistical testing and 25 by applying both methods. The applied tests were Egger’s test (n = 18), Deeks’ test (n = 12), Begg’s test (n = 5), both the Egger and Begg tests (n = 4), and other tests (n = 2). Our own comparison of the results of Begg’s, Egger’s and Deeks’ test for 92 meta-analyses indicated that up to 34% of the results did not correspond with one another.ConclusionsThe majority of DTA review authors mention or investigate publication bias. They mainly use suboptimal methods like the Begg and Egger tests that are not developed for DTA meta-analyses. Our comparison of the Begg, Egger and Deeks tests indicated that these tests do give different results and thus are not interchangeable. Deeks’ test is recommended for DTA meta-analyses and should be preferred.

Background Poor reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies impedes an objective appraisal of the clinical performance of diagnostic tests. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement, first published in 2003, aims to improve the reporting quality of such studies. Objective To investigate to which extent published diagnostic accuracy studies adhere to the 25-item STARD checklist, whether the reporting quality has improved after STARD's launch and whether there are any factors associated with adherence. Study selection We performed a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Methodology Register of the Cochrane Library for studies that primarily aimed to examine the reporting quality of articles on diagnostic accuracy studies in humans by evaluating adherence to STARD. Study selection was performed in duplicate; data were extracted by one author and verified by the second author. Findings We included 16 studies, analysing 1496 articles in total. Three studies investigated adherence in a general sample of diagnostic accuracy studies; the others did so in a specific field of research. The overall mean number of items reported varied from 9.1 to 14.3 between 13 evaluations that evaluated all 25 STARD items. Six studies quantitatively compared post-STARD with pre-STARD articles. Combining these results in a random-effects meta-analysis revealed a modest but significant increase in adherence after STARD's introduction (mean difference 1.41 items (95% CI 0.65 to 2.18)).Conclusions The reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies was consistently moderate, at least through halfway the 2000s. Our results suggest a small improvement in the years after the introduction of STARD. Adherence to STARD should be further promoted among researchers, editors and peer reviewers.

Completeness of reporting improved in the 10 years after the launch of STARD, but it remains suboptimal for many articles. Reporting of inclusion criteria and sampling methods for recruiting patients, information about blinding, and confidence intervals for accuracy estimates are in need of further improvement.

No abstract

Background Routine colonoscopy was traditionally recommended after acute diverticulitis to exclude coexistent malignancy. Improved CT imaging may make routine colonoscopy less required over time but most guidelines still recommend it. The aim of this review was to assess the role of colonoscopy in patients with CT‐proven acute diverticulitis. Methods PubMed and Embase were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) or colorectal carcinoma in patients who underwent colonoscopy within 1 year after CT‐proven left‐sided acute diverticulitis. The prevalence was pooled using a random‐effects model and, if possible, compared with that among asymptomatic controls. Results Seventeen studies with 3296 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of ACN was 6·9 (95 per cent c.i. 5·0 to 9·4) per cent and that of colorectal carcinoma was 2·1 (1·5 to 3·1) per cent. Only two studies reported a comparison with asymptomatic controls, showing comparable risks (risk ratio 1·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 4·96). In subgroup analysis of patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, the prevalence of colorectal carcinoma was only 0·5 (0·2 to 1·2) per cent. Conclusion Routine colonoscopy may be omitted in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis if CT imaging is otherwise clear. Patients with complicated disease or ongoing symptoms should undergo colonoscopy.

BackgroundThe shift from routine antibiotics towards omitting antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis opens up the possibility for outpatient instead of inpatient treatment, potentially reducing the burden of one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in the Western world.PurposeAssessing the safety and cost savings of outpatient treatment in acute colonic diverticulitis.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies on outpatient treatment of colonic diverticulitis, confirmed with computed tomography or ultrasound. Outcomes were readmission rate, need for emergency surgery or percutaneous abscess drainage, and healthcare costs.ResultsA total of 19 studies with 2303 outpatient treated patients were included. These studies predominantly excluded patients with comorbidity or immunosuppression, inability to tolerate oral intake, or lack of an adequate social network. The pooled incidence rate of readmission for outpatient treatment was 7% (95%CI 6–9%, I2 48%). Only 0.2% (2/1288) of patients underwent emergency surgery, and 0.2% (2/1082) of patients underwent percutaneous abscess drainage. Only two studies compared readmission rates outpatients that had similar characteristics as a control group of inpatients; 4.5% (3/66) and 6.3% (2/32) readmissions in outpatient groups versus 6.1% (4/66) and 0.0% (0/44) readmissions in inpatient groups (p = 0.619 and p = 0.174, respectively). Average healthcare cost savings for outpatient compared with inpatient treatment ranged between 42 and 82%.ConclusionOutpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis resulted in low readmission rates and very low rates of complications. Furthermore, healthcare cost savings were substantial. Therefore, outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis seems to be a safe option for most patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00384-018-3015-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundPublication and selective outcome reporting bias are a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Extensive searching for additional trials in prospective trial registers could reduce this problem. We have evaluated how authors of Cochrane systematic reviews currently make use of trial registers as an additional source for the identification of potentially eligible trials.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe included 210 systematic Cochrane reviews of interventions published between 2008 and 2010 of which the protocol was first published in 2008. When prospective trial registers were searched we recorded the names of the register(s), the authors' motive(s) and if they yielded any extra trials.In 80 reviews (38.1%) the authors had searched in one or more prospective trial register(s) of which 55% had searched in overlapping search portals and individual registers. Most frequently assessed were the MetaRegister (66.3%) and Clinicaltrials.gov (60%) which is in sharp contrast of other registers or portals like the WHO ICTRP Search Portal (20%). Reported motives to use registers were to identify ongoing trials (83.3%), to identify unpublished outcomes or trials (23.5%), to identify recently published trials (11.8%), or to identify any relevant trial (3.9%).In 28 reviews (35%) the authors had selected (ongoing) trials identified in trial registers as potentially eligible.DiscussionTrial registers as an additional source of information are gaining acknowledgement amongst Cochrane reviewers. Nevertheless, searches seem to be inefficient as overlapping databases are frequently consulted, while the WHO ICTRP Search Portal that includes the data from all approved registers worldwide is being underused. Moreover, the emphasis is now on the identification of ongoing trials, although the prospective registers offer a broader potential. Further familiarity of registers and guidance how to search and to report will help to implement this as a common method and utilize the full potential of prospective trial registers for systematic reviews.