Brief Report
December 2015

Reporting Weaknesses in Conference Abstracts of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Ophthalmology

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • 2Inserm U1153, Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
  • 3Department of Translational Surgery and Medicine, Eye Clinic, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
  • 4Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland

Copyright 2015 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(12):1464-1467. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.3577

Importance  Conference abstracts present information that helps clinicians and researchers to decide whether to attend a presentation. They also provide a source of unpublished research that could potentially be included in systematic reviews. We systematically assessed whether conference abstracts of studies that evaluated the accuracy of a diagnostic test were sufficiently informative.

Observations  We identified all abstracts describing work presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. Abstracts were eligible if they included a measure of diagnostic accuracy, such as sensitivity, specificity, or likelihood ratios. Two independent reviewers evaluated each abstract using a list of 21 items, selected from published guidance for adequate reporting. A total of 126 of 6310 abstracts presented were eligible. Only a minority reported inclusion criteria (5%), clinical setting (24%), patient sampling (10%), reference standard (48%), whether test readers were masked (7%), 2 × 2 tables (16%), and confidence intervals around accuracy estimates (16%). The mean number of items reported was 8.9 of 21 (SD, 2.1; range, 4-17).

Conclusions and Relevance  Crucial information about study methods and results is often missing in abstracts of diagnostic studies presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, making it difficult to assess risk for bias and applicability to specific clinical settings.