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.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.1166479.627466 ◽

2009 ◽

Author(s):

Penny Whiting

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Test ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽

Test Accuracy

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1136/bmj.n265 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. n265

Author(s):

Jérémie F Cohen ◽

Jonathan J Deeks ◽

Lotty Hooft ◽

Jean-Paul Salameh ◽

Daniël A Korevaar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Test ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽

Test Accuracy ◽

Meta Analyses

Download Full-text

Determining qualitative effect size ratings using a likelihood ratio scatter matrix in diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews

Diagnosis ◽

10.1515/dx-2018-0061 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. 205-214 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Matthew L. Rubinstein ◽

Colleen S. Kraft ◽

J. Scott Parrott

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Test ◽

Likelihood Ratio ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Effect Size ◽

Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽

Test Accuracy ◽

Quality And Safety ◽

Scatter Matrix ◽

Diagnostic Quality ◽

Qualitative Effect

AbstractBackgroundDiagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews (SRs) characterize a test’s potential for diagnostic quality and safety. However, interpreting DTA measures in the context of SRs is challenging. Further, some evidence grading methods (e.g. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Laboratory Systems Laboratory Medicine Best Practices method) require determination of qualitative effect size ratings as a contributor to practice recommendations. This paper describes a recently developed effect size rating approach for assessing a DTA evidence base.MethodsA likelihood ratio scatter matrix will plot positive and negative likelihood ratio pairings for DTA studies. Pairings are graphed as single point estimates with confidence intervals, positioned in one of four quadrants derived from established thresholds for test clinical validity. These quadrants support defensible judgments on “substantial”, “moderate”, or “minimal” effect size ratings for each plotted study. The approach is flexible in relation to a priori determinations of the relative clinical importance of false positive and false negative test results.Results and conclusionsThis qualitative effect size rating approach was operationalized in a recent SR that assessed effectiveness of test practices for the diagnosis ofClostridium difficile. Relevance of this approach to other methods of grading evidence, and efforts to measure diagnostic quality and safety are described. Limitations of the approach arise from understanding that a diagnostic test is not an isolated element in the diagnostic process, but provides information in clinical context towards diagnostic quality and safety.

Download Full-text

Chapter 9: Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis ◽

10.46658/jbimes-20-10 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jared Campbell ◽

Miloslav Klugar ◽

Sandrine Ding ◽

Dennis Carmody ◽

Sasja Hakonsen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Test ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽

Test Accuracy

Download Full-text

The diagnostic accuracy of isothermal nucleic acid point-of-care tests for human coronaviruses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-020-79237-7 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Pakpoom Subsoontorn ◽

Manupat Lohitnavy ◽

Chuenjid Kongkaew

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Diagnostic Test ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Isothermal Amplification ◽

Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽

Test Accuracy ◽

Index Test ◽

Point Of Care Tests

AbstractMany recent studies reported coronavirus point-of-care tests (POCTs) based on isothermal amplification. However, the performances of these tests have not been systematically evaluated. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy was used as a guideline for conducting this systematic review. We searched peer-reviewed and preprint articles in PubMed, BioRxiv and MedRxiv up to 28 September 2020 to identify studies that provide data to calculate sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was applied for assessing quality of included studies and Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) was followed for reporting. We included 81 studies from 65 research articles on POCTs of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. Most studies had high risk of patient selection and index test bias but low risk in other domains. Diagnostic specificities were high (> 0.95) for included studies while sensitivities varied depending on type of assays and sample used. Most studies (n = 51) used reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) to diagnose coronaviruses. RT-LAMP of RNA purified from COVID-19 patient samples had pooled sensitivity at 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.96). RT-LAMP of crude samples had substantially lower sensitivity at 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65–0.87). Abbott ID Now performance was similar to RT-LAMP of crude samples. Diagnostic performances by CRISPR and RT-LAMP on purified RNA were similar. Other diagnostic platforms including RT- recombinase assisted amplification (RT-RAA) and SAMBA-II also offered high sensitivity (> 0.95). Future studies should focus on the use of un-bias patient cohorts, double-blinded index test and detection assays that do not require RNA extraction.

Download Full-text