Jean-Paul Salameh1,2, Matthew D F McInnes3,4, David Moher1, Brett D Thombs5,6, Trevor A McGrath4, Robert Frank4, Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi4, Noémie Kraaijpoel7, Brooke Levis5,6, Patrick M Bossuyt8. 1. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; mmcinnes@toh.on.ca. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada. 6. Departments of Psychiatry; Medicine; Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health; Psychology; and Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. 7. Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam.
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.
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.
Authors: Daniël A Korevaar; Jean-Paul Salameh; Yasaman Vali; Jérémie F Cohen; Matthew D F McInnes; René Spijker; Patrick M Bossuyt Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 5.273
Authors: Ferrán Catalá-López; Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo; Matthew J Page; Brian Hutton; Manuel Ridao; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos; Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent; David Moher Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jérémie F Cohen; Jonathan J Deeks; Lotty Hooft; Jean-Paul Salameh; Daniël A Korevaar; Constantine Gatsonis; Sally Hopewell; Harriet A Hunt; Chris J Hyde; Mariska M Leeflang; Petra Macaskill; Trevor A McGrath; David Moher; Johannes B Reitsma; Anne W S Rutjes; Yemisi Takwoingi; Marcello Tonelli; Penny Whiting; Brian H Willis; Brett Thombs; Patrick M Bossuyt; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-03-15