Low Reporting Quality of the Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Pathology.

CONTEXT: - Little is known regarding the reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology. OBJECTIVE: - To compare reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology and medicine and to examine factors associated with reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses. DESIGN: - Meta-analyses were identified in 12 major diagnostic pathology journals without specifying years and 4 major medicine journals in 2006 and 2011 using PubMed. Reporting quality of meta-analyses was evaluated using the 27-item checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009. A higher PRISMA score indicates higher reporting quality. RESULTS: - Forty-one diagnostic pathology meta-analyses and 118 medicine meta-analyses were included. Overall, reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology was lower than that in medicine (median [interquartile range] = 22 [15, 25] versus 27 [23, 28], P < .001). Compared with medicine meta-analyses, diagnostic pathology meta-analyses less likely reported 23 of the 27 items (85.2%) on the PRISMA checklist, but more likely reported the data items. Higher reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses was associated with recent publication years (later than 2009 versus 2009 or earlier, P = .002) and non-North American first authors (versus North American, P = .001), but not journal publisher's location (P = .11). Interestingly, reporting quality was not associated with adjusted citation ratio for meta-analyses in either diagnostic pathology or medicine (P = .40 and P = .09, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: - 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.

Underutilization of Meta-analysis in Diagnostic Pathology.

CONTEXT: Underutilization of Meta-analysis 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 ± 2.31 versus 0.92 ± 0.84, P < .001) and similar to those of review articles in 2006 (2.62 ± 2.31 versus 1.95 ± 1.59, P = .50), but they were similar to both in 2011 (1.85 ± 1.39 versus 0.99 ± 1.43, P = .11; 1.85 ± 1.39 versus 1.12 ± 1.43, P = .21, respectively). Diagnostic pathology and medicine meta-analyses had similar ACRs (1.85 ± 1.39 versus 1.57 ± 1.35 in 2011, P = .60; and 2.62 ± 2.31 versus 1.85 ± 1.90 in 2006, P = .50, respectively). However, although DP journals published fewer meta-analyses (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 ± 1.29 versus 1.36 ± 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.