Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline
- PMID: 30237150
- DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.292987
Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline
Abstract
Background: We evaluated the completeness of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews using the recently developed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA)-DTA guidelines.
Methods: MEDLINE® was searched for DTA systematic reviews published October 2017 to January 2018. The search time span was modulated to reach the desired sample size of 100 systematic reviews. Reporting on a per-item basis using PRISMA-DTA was evaluated.
Results: One hundred reviews were included. Mean reported items were 18.6 of 26 (71%; SD = 1.9) for PRISMA-DTA and 5.5 of 11 (50%; SD = 1.2) for PRISMA-DTA for abstracts. Items in the results were frequently reported. Items related to protocol registration, characteristics of included studies, results synthesis, and definitions used in data extraction were infrequently reported. Infrequently reported items from PRISMA-DTA for abstracts included funding information, strengths and limitations, characteristics of included studies, and assessment of applicability. Reporting completeness was higher in higher impact factor journals (18.9 vs 18.1 items; P = 0.04), studies that cited PRISMA (18.9 vs 17.7 items; P = 0.003), or used supplementary material (19.1 vs 18.0 items; P = 0.004). Variability in reporting was associated with author country (P = 0.04) but not journal (P = 0.6), abstract word count limitations (P = 0.9), PRISMA adoption (P = 0.2), structured abstracts (P = 0.2), study design (P = 0.8), subspecialty area (P = 0.09), or index test (P = 0.5). Abstracts with a higher word count were more informative (R = 0.4; P < 0.001). No association with word counts was observed for full-text reports (R = -0.03; P = 0.06).
Conclusions: Recently published reports of DTA systematic reviews are not fully informative when evaluated against the PRISMA-DTA guidelines. These results should guide knowledge translation strategies, including journal level (e.g., PRISMA-DTA adoption, increased abstract word count, and use of supplementary material) and author level (PRISMA-DTA citation awareness) strategies.
© 2018 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.
Comment in
-
Closing the Gap between Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews and Reporting Guidelines: The PRISMA-Diagnostic Test Accuracy Statement.Clin Chem. 2019 Feb;65(2):222-224. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.296749. Epub 2018 Nov 30. Clin Chem. 2019. PMID: 30504260 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Assessing Adherence to the PRISMA-DTA Guideline in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews: A Five-Year Follow-up Analysis.J Appl Lab Med. 2025 Mar 3;10(2):416-431. doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfae117. J Appl Lab Med. 2025. PMID: 39699177
-
Completeness of reporting for systematic reviews of point-of-care ultrasound: a meta-research study.BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021 Mar 30:bmjebm-2020-111652. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111652. Online ahead of print. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021. PMID: 33785511
-
Reporting completeness in abstracts of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in cardiovascular diseases is suboptimal.Hellenic J Cardiol. 2022 Feb 15;65:25-34. doi: 10.1016/j.hjc.2022.02.001. Print 2022 May/June. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2022. PMID: 35181563
-
Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review.Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 10;6(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0590-8. Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 29017574 Free PMC article.
-
Assessment of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guideline adherence in medical imaging diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2023.J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Mar;179:111654. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111654. Epub 2024 Dec 27. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025. PMID: 39733974
Cited by
-
Prevalence of the Retro-Renal Colon: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Implications for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.Int J Gen Med. 2022 Nov 21;15:8275-8283. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S389682. eCollection 2022. Int J Gen Med. 2022. PMID: 36438019 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Methods and reporting of systematic reviews of comparative accuracy were deficient: a methodological survey and proposed guidance.J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 May;121:1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.007. Epub 2019 Dec 14. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020. PMID: 31843693 Free PMC article.
-
Accuracy of optical coherence tomography for diagnosing glaucoma: an overview of systematic reviews.Br J Ophthalmol. 2021 Apr;105(4):490-495. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316152. Epub 2020 Jun 3. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021. PMID: 32493760 Free PMC article.
-
Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration.BMJ. 2021 Mar 15;372:n265. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n265. BMJ. 2021. PMID: 33722791 Free PMC article.
-
Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 11;8(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1090-9. Syst Rev. 2019. PMID: 31296260 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources