IntroductionSurgical resection is the only curative treatment for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, 80%–85% of patients present with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable pancreatic cancer at the time of diagnosis. Detection of pancreatic cancer at early stages remains a great challenge due to lack of accurate detection tests. Recommendations in existing clinical practice guidelines on early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer are inconsistent and based on limited evidence. Most of them endorse measuring serum CA19-9 as a complementary test, but also state that it is not recommended for diagnosing early pancreatic cancer. There are currently no other tumour-specific markers recommended for diagnosing early pancreatic cancer. This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy of five common tumour biomarkers (CA242, carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA)), CA125, microRNAs and K-ras gene mutation) and CA19-9 and their combinations for diagnosing pancreatic cancer using network meta-analysis method, and to rank these tests using a superiority index.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to April 2017. The search will include the above-mentioned tumour biomarkers for diagnosing pancreatic cancer, including CA19-9. The risk of bias for each study will be independently assessed as low, moderate or high using criteria adapted from the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Network meta-analysis will be performed using STATA V.12.0 and R software V.3.4.1. The competing diagnostic tests will be ranked by a superiority index.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and patient consent are not required since this study is a network meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this network meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017064627.

BackgroundThe number of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) has increased dramatically in China over the past decades. However, evaluation of quality of reporting of systematic reviews published has not been undertaken. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs/MAs assessing efficacy and/or harms of clinical interventions published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals.MethodsWeb-based database searches were conducted for the Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine, the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, the Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics, and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine. SRs/MAs assessing efficacy and/or harms of clinical interventions were included. The cut-off was December 31st 2011. The PRISMA statement was applied to assess the quality of reporting. Each item was assessed as follows: ‘Yes’ for total compliance, scored ‘1’; ‘partial’ for partial compliance, scored ‘0.5’; and ‘No’ for non-compliance, scored ‘0’. The review was considered to have major flaws if it received a total score of ≤15.0, minor flaws if it received a total score of 15.5 to 21.0, and minimal flaws if it received a total score 21.5 to 27.0. Odds ratios were used for binary variables, and the mean difference was used for continuous variables. Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software.ResultsOverall, 487 SRs/MAs were identified and assessed. The included reviews had medium quality with minor flaws based on PRISMA total scores (range: 8.5–26.0; mean: 19.6 ± 3.3). The stratified analysis showed that SRs/MAs with more than 3 authors, from a university, hospital + university cooperation, multiple affiliations (≥2), and funding have significantly higher quality of reporting of SRs/MAs; 58% of the included reviews were considered to have minor flaws (total score of 15.6 to 21.0). Only 9.6% of reviews were considered to have major flaws. Specific areas needing improvement in reporting include the abstract, protocol and registration, and characteristics of the search.ConclusionsThe reporting of SRs published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals is poor and needs to be improved in order for reviews to be useful. SR authors should use the PRISMA checklist to ensure complete and accurate accounts of their SRs.

No abstract

This meta-analysis showed that the sensitivity and specificity of IGRAs were slightly higher than TST and can be used as supporting tools to detect LTBI in children younger than 5 years. The methodological quality of diagnostic test needs to be improved.