Open AccessReporting and Concordance of Methodologic Criteria Between Abstracts and Articles in Diagnostic Test Studies
Author(s) -
Estrada Carlos A.,
Bloch Richard M.,
Antonacci Diana,
Basnight L. Lorraine,
Patel Sangnya R.,
Patel Sanjay C.,
Wiese Wilhelmine
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of general internal medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.746
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 1525-1497
pISSN - 0884-8734
DOI - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.03189.x
Subject(s) - medicine , concordance , confidence interval , gold standard (test) , medline , data extraction , test (biology) , paleontology , political science , law , biology
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and concordance of methodologic criteria in abstracts versus articles regarding the diagnosis of trichomoniasis. STUDY DESIGN: Survey of published literature. DATA SOURCES: Studies indexed in medline (1976–1998). STUDY SELECTION: Studies that used culture as the gold or reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from abstract and articles were independently abstracted using 4 methodologic criteria: (1) prospective evaluation of consecutive patients; (2) test results did not influence the decision to do gold standard; (3) independent and blind comparison with gold standard; and (4) broad spectrum of patients used. The total number of criteria met for each report was calculated to create a quality score (0–4). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: None of the 33 abstracts or full articles reported all 4 criteria. Three criteria were reported in none of the abstracts and in 18% of articles (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 8.6% to 34%). Two criteria were reported in 18% of abstracts (95% CI, 8.6% to 34%) and 42% of articles (95% CI, 27% to 59%). One criterion was reported in 42% of abstracts (95% CI, 27% to 59%) and 27% of articles (95% CI, 15% to 44%). No criteria were reported in 13 (39%) of 33 abstracts (95% CI, 25% to 56%) and 4 (12%) of 33 articles (95% CI, 4.8% to 27%). The agreement of the criteria between the abstract and the article was poor (κ−0.09; 95% CI, −0.18 to 0) to moderate (κ 0.53; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Information on methods basic to study validity is often absent from both abstract and paper. The concordance of such criteria between the abstract and article needs to improve.