الفهرس 
AcknowledgementsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 143 |  |  |
| | | from | 143 | | |
Abstract
our review was that there is inadequate reporting of published papers and their abstracts of DTA studies on blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis, this final conclusion is the same as that of many other similar reviews conducted to check for adherence of different DTA studies to reporting guidelines. We also concluded that there is improvement in reporting over year, and there is a positive effect of journal IF on adherence to STARD 2015 checklist but not on STARD for abstract checklist. Recommendations: We strongly recommend authors of diagnostic accuracy studies to take STARD 2015 check list and STARD for abstract checklist into account from the stage of designing the study and onwards. This way, the items can easily be incorporated in the final article. In addition, this may lead to an increased awareness among authors about potential sources of bias, which allows them to take preventive measures and, consequently, also increases the methodological quality of their study. In addition, we recommend that an evaluation of adherence to STARD should be performed on a more recent cohort of diagnostic accuracy studies. We also invite the scientific research community to convince journal editors of the necessity of adopting reporting guidelines. Finally, this study has also set the basis for future evaluations of how the introduction of STARD 2015 & STARD for abstract will change the reporting of DTA studies on blood biomarkers for non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis over the next few years, as adherence to STARD should be further promoted among researchers, editors, and peer reviewers. Registration number and name of registry:This study is registered in Prospero with registration number: CRD42021259990Available romhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021259990Conflict of interest: Authors declare no conflict of interest. This study didn’t receive any fund.Background and Objectives: Endometriosis is a chronic gynecological disorder that affects nearly 10% of women. It can be asymptomatic or presents with dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia or infertility. The only gold standard to reliably diagnose endometriosis is direct visualization during laparoscopy/laparotomy confirmed by histopathologic evidence of endometrial like tissue outside the uterine cavity. The need for non-invasive blood biomarker for diagnosis of endometriosis derives many researchers to conduct diagnostic accuracy studies. The quality of these studies needs to be assessed to ascertain their results and to judge on risk of bias and generalizability. Under-reporting DTA studies was identified by reviewers and readers and considered a limitation for quality assessment of those studies. Standards for reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 checklist and STARD for abstract were both developed to improve DTA studies reporting by authors. This systematic review aims to check the adherence of studies on blood biomarkers for diagnosis of endometriosis to STARD 2015 and STARD for abstract checklists, and to check if there is any effect of the year of publication or the journal IF on the rate of adherence.
Methods: 210 studies on blood biomarkers for non-invasive diagnosis were systematically reviewed in this study. For STARD 2015 checklist and STARD for abstract checklist, each study got a score out of 31 and 11 respectively to reflect their rate of adherence. If the item in the checklist is reported in the study, it was given a score of 1 if not it was given a score of 0. A data extraction sheet was tailored from the original checklist and customed to the studies included in the review was used as a guide to assess each study by the authors. The correlation between the rate of adherence and the year of publication, and the rate of adherence and journal IF were checked using Pearson’s correlation test for bivariate analysis and expressed as correlation coefficient ( r ). Results are considered significant when P-value < 0.05.
Results: Regarding to STARD 2015 checklist, overall adherence was 28.5% for 6510 individual rating across 31 items, with a mean of 8.8 (SD: 3.1; range 2-18) items per study. A notable increase of adherence was found with publication year (r:0.629, 95% CI 0.330 to 0.919; P < 0.001). We found better overall adherence (per study) in journals with higher impact factor than others with lower impact factor, although it is a weak positive correlation, it is statistically significant (r = 0.17, P=0.027). For STARD for abstract, overall adherence is 31.73% for 2288 individual ratings across 11 items with a mean of 3.49 (SD: 1.6; range 0 – 9) per study with a notable increase of adherence was found with publication year (r:0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8; P = 0.004), but we found no statistically significant correlation between the impact factor of the journal and the rate of adherence to STARD for abstract check list (P=0.7).
Conclusion: In conclusion we found that there is marked inadequate reporting of DTA studies and their abstracts on blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis and there is improvement in reporting over year with a positive effect of journal IF on adherence to STARD 2015 checklist but not on STARD for abstract checklist