OBJECTIVE: To quantify use of shorthand description of research design in the titles and abstracts of diagnostic test accuracy studies, comparing 2012 and 2019. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Joint examination, using pre-specified criteria, by two investigators of 320 randomly sampled articles indexed as "diagnostic (test) accuracy studies" ...
OBJECTIVE: To quantify use of shorthand description of research design in the titles and abstracts of diagnostic test accuracy studies, comparing 2012 and 2019. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Joint examination, using pre-specified criteria, by two investigators of 320 randomly sampled articles indexed as "diagnostic (test) accuracy studies" in EMBASE in 2012 and 2019. RESULTS: The percentage of abstracts with shorthand descriptions of study design was 11% in 2012 and 15% in 2019, a difference of 4% (95% CI -3, 12). Although use of the term accuracy in the abstract did increase (58% in 2012 to 74% in 2019, difference 16% (95% CI 5, 26)), accuracy was only used to convey purpose or design in 49% (95% CI 43, 56) of abstracts where accuracy appeared (2012+2019). CONCLUSION: It is difficult to identify the study design of test evaluations from information in the title and abstract. This is important because bias is associated with different study designs. Developing a limited number of standardised, widely understood study design descriptions could greatly improve clarity of the only freely available information on many pieces of medical research. It may be helpful that the fact that a study addresses test accuracy be part of shorthand descriptions.
