ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Assessment of spin within diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses published in top pathology journals: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"Spin" - the overinterpretation of research findings - has been assessed in experimental and synthesis designs of interventional evidence. Little attention has been given to the assessment of spin in diagnostic evidence bases. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional study to assess for spin found within diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses published in top pathology journals. We searched PubMed for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses published in top 20 pathology journals from past to present. We applied published methodology to identify the presence of 10 items of actual overinterpretation and 9 items of potential overinterpretation. Authors screened and extracted relevant data from sample studies in a masked duplicate fashion to reduce extraction errors. On September 21st, 2023, we identified 207 articles from PubMed for potential inclusions. After screening, 55 abstracts and full-texts were available for full data extraction. with 80% (44/55) having positive conclusions germane to accuracy or clinical implications. Every meta-analysis contained one item of spin. Most positive conclusions in abstracts (75%; 33/44) and full-texts (79.6%; 35/44) did not adequately reflect pooled estimates while 19 (34.5%) studies employed non-recommended statistical approaches for pooling accuracy measures. Diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses found within top pathology journals consistently overstate their conclusions. Authors should contextualize diagnostic summary effects within predetermined diagnostic performance. Further, authors should ensure that summary estimates are pooled using bivariate or hierarchical approaches that maintain threshold effects throughout meta-analytic calculations. Readers should cautiously interpret meta-analyses that fail to report sample sizes and confidence intervals of summary estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41575525What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.