Journal article
Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement.
- McInnes MDF Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Moher D Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Thombs BD Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
- McGrath TA University of Ottawa Department of Radiology, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Bossuyt PM Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Clifford T Department of Pediatrics, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
- Cohen JF University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.
- Deeks JJ Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
- Gatsonis C Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
- Hooft L University of Exeter, Exeter, England.
- Hunt HA University of Exeter, Exeter, England.
- Hyde CJ Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Korevaar DA Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Leeflang MMG University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
- Macaskill P Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
- Reitsma JB Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Rodin R Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Berner Institut für Hausarztmedizin, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Rutjes AWS Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Salameh JP Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Stevens A University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.
- Takwoingi Y University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
- Tonelli M Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ontario.
- Weeks L University of Bristol, National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, Bristol, England.
- Whiting P University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.
- Willis BH
- 2018-01-25
Published in:
- JAMA. - 2018
Checklist
Consensus Development Conferences as Topic
Delphi Technique
Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures
Guidelines as Topic
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Reproducibility of Results
Review Literature as Topic
English
Importance
Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy.
Objective
To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews.
Design
Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group.
Findings
The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted.
Conclusions and Relevance
The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.
Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy.
Objective
To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews.
Design
Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group.
Findings
The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted.
Conclusions and Relevance
The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- bronze
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1001/jama.2017.19163
- PMID 29362800
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/263453
Statistics
Document views: 51
File downloads: