The methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic tests of MRI




Poster session 5


Thursday 27 October 2016 - 10:30 to 11:00


All authors in correct order:

Wang M1, Li L1, Chen Y2, Lei J1
1 The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, China
2 Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, China
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:


Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: The quality of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not known.

Objectives: To investigate the methodological quality of the systematic review/meta-analysis of diagnostic tests of MRI.

Methods: We performed an electronic search of the SinoMed database from inception to August 2014. The search terms included 'diagnosis', 'specificity', 'sensitivity', 'systematic review', 'systematic assessment' and 'meta-analysis'. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data according to the inclusion criteria, and used the internationally standardized tool AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews ) to evaluate the methodological quality of the included researches. Finally, we used Excel to input and analyze the data.

Results: We included 53 related systematic reviews/meta-analyses published from 2004 to 2014. They were published in 36 periodicals, with most in the Chinese Journal of Radiology. Thirty-three diagnostic diseases were involved in these systematic reviews/meta-analyses. The top three were ischemic necrosis of femoral head (5 reviews), prostate cancer (4 reviews), and pulmonary artery embolism (3 reviews). Nine articles reported funding assistance: three received national funding assistance, five received provincial and civic funding assistance, two received funding assistance from institutions of higher learning. The AMSTAR results will be presented at the Cochrane Colloquium.

Conclusions: At present, the methodological quality of the systematic review/meta-analysis of diagnostic tests of MRI is generally low, and we need to start more high-quality research. Next we will evaluate comprehensively all the diagnostic systematic reviews relating to imaging methods.