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

被引:112
|
作者
McGrath, Trevor A. [1 ]
Alabousi, Mostafa [2 ]
Skidmore, Becky [3 ]
Korevaar, Daniel A. [4 ]
Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. [4 ]
Moher, David [5 ]
Thombs, Brett [6 ,7 ]
McInnes, Matthew D. F. [8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Radiol, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] Ottawa Hosp, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol Biostat & Bioinformat, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] Ottawa Hosp, Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[6] McGill Univ, Jewish Gen Hosp, Lady Davis Inst, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[7] McGill Univ, Dept Psychiat, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[8] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa Hosp, Clin Epidemiol Program, Dept Radiol,Res Inst, Room c159,Civ Campus,1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
关键词
HEALTH-CARE; MULTIPLE; QUALITY; WASTE; TOOL;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-017-0590-8
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 (R), Ovid MEDLINE (R) 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.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review
    Trevor A. McGrath
    Mostafa Alabousi
    Becky Skidmore
    Daniël A. Korevaar
    Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
    David Moher
    Brett Thombs
    Matthew D. F. McInnes
    Systematic Reviews, 6
  • [2] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy
    Leeflang, M. M. G.
    CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2014, 20 (02) : 105 - 113
  • [3] 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)
    McGrath, Trevor A.
    Moher, David
    McInnes, Matthew D. F.
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, 8 (1)
  • [4] 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)
    Trevor A. McGrath
    David Moher
    Matthew D. F. McInnes
    Systematic Reviews, 8
  • [5] Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses)
    Walther, S.
    Schuetz, G. M.
    Hamm, B.
    Dewey, M.
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2011, 183 (12): : 1106 - 1110
  • [6] Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    Rice, Danielle B.
    Kloda, Lorie A.
    Shrier, Ian
    Thombs, Brett D.
    BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (11):
  • [7] Moving Beyond Diagnostic Accuracy With Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
    Zehtabchi, Shahriar
    Fatovich, Daniel Michael
    ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2019, 26 (05) : 580 - 583
  • [8] A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting
    Peters, Jaime L.
    Sutton, Alex J.
    Jones, David R.
    Rushton, Lesley
    Abrams, Keith R.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH PART B-PESTICIDES FOOD CONTAMINANTS AND AGRICULTURAL WASTES, 2006, 41 (07) : 1245 - 1258
  • [9] Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: The PRISMA-DTA Statement
    Frank, Robert A.
    Bossuyt, Patrick M.
    McInnes, Matthew D. F.
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 289 (02) : 313 - 314
  • [10] PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    Juni, Peter
    Egger, Matthias
    LANCET, 2009, 374 (9697): : 1221 - 1223