Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication
The objective of this study was to evaluate whether higher reported accuracy estimates are associated with shorter time to publication among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies.
We included primary imaging diagnostic accuracy studies, included in meta-analyses from systematic reviews published in 2015. For each primary study, we extracted accuracy estimates, participant recruitment periods and publication dates. Our primary outcome was the association between Youden’s index (sensitivity + specificity − 1, a single measure of diagnostic accuracy) and time to publication.
We included 55 systematic reviews and 781 primary studies. Study completion dates were missing for 238 (30%) studies. The median time from completion to publication in the remaining 543 studies was 20 months (IQR 14–29). Youden’s index was negatively correlated with time from completion to publication (rho = −0.11, p = 0.009). This association remained significant in multivariable Cox regression analyses after adjusting for seven study characteristics: hazard ratio of publication was 1.09 (95% CI 1.03–1.16, p = 0.004) per unit increase for logit-transformed estimates of Youden’s index. When dichotomizing Youden’s index by a median split, time from completion to publication was 20 months (IQR 13–33) for studies with a Youden’s index below the median, and 19 months (14–27) for studies with a Youden’s index above the median (p = 0.104).
Imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with higher accuracy estimates were weakly associated with a shorter time to publication.
• Higher accuracy estimates are weakly associated with shorter time to publication.
• Lag in time to publication remained significant in multivariate Cox regression analyses.
• No correlation between accuracy and time from submission to publication was identified.
KeywordsDiagnostic test, routine Epidemiology Publication bias Meta-analysis Sensitivity and specificity
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Matthew McInnes.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise (Drs. Korevaar and McInnes).
Written informed consent was not required for this study because it evaluated published literature.
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
• multicentre study
- 2.de Barra M (2017) Reporting bias inflates the reputation of medical treatments: a comparison of outcomes in clinical trials and online product reviews. Soc Sci Med 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.033
- 6.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J et al (2014) Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:MR000035Google Scholar
- 7.Driessen E, Hollon SD, Bockting CL, Cuijpers P, Turner EH (2015) Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US National Institutes of Health-funded trials. PLoS One 10:e0137864CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.de Vet H, Eisinga A, Riphagen I, Aertgeerts B, Pewsner D (2008) Chapter 7: Searching for studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 0.4 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
- 27.Core Team R (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- 28.IBM (2016) IBM Statistics for Mac. 24 edGoogle Scholar