Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct 10;6(1):194.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0590-8.

Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review

Trevor A McGrath  1 , Mostafa Alabousi  2 , Becky Skidmore  3 , Daniël A Korevaar  4 , Patrick M M Bossuyt  4 , David Moher  5 , Brett Thombs  6 , Matthew D F McInnes  7
Affiliations

Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review

Trevor A McGrath et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: This study is to perform a systematic review of existing guidance on quality of reporting and methodology for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) in order to compile a list of potential items that might be included in a reporting guideline for such reviews: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).

Methods: Study protocol published on EQUATOR website. Articles in full text or abstract form that reported on any aspect of reporting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy were eligible for inclusion. We used the Ovid platform to search Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Embase Classic+Embase through May 5, 2016. The Cochrane Methodology Register in the Cochrane Library (Wiley version) was also searched. Title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening of all search results was performed independently by two investigators. Guideline organization websites, published guidance statements, and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy were also searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) were assessed independently by two investigators for relevant items.

Results: The literature searched yielded 6967 results; 386 were included after title and abstract screening and 203 after full-text screening. After reviewing the existing literature and guidance documents, a preliminary list of 64 items was compiled into the following categories: title (three items); introduction (two items); methods (35 items); results (13 items); discussion (nine items), and disclosure (two items).

Conclusion: Items on the methods and reporting of DTA systematic reviews in the present systematic review will provide a basis for generating a PRISMA extension for DTA systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval is not required for this type of study at the authors’ institutions.

Consent for publication

All authors provide consent for publication.

Competing interests

David Moher is Editor-in-Chief of Systematic Reviews. No other relevant competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Singh H, Graber ML. Improving diagnosis in health care—the next imperative for patient safety. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2493–2495. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1512241. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McInnes MD, Bossuyt PM. Pitfalls of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in imaging research. Radiology. 2015;277:13–21. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142779. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293:2362–2366. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.19.2362. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323:334–336. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7308.334. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. National Academies Press (US); 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209539/. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources