Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of one or more index tests against a reference standard. DTA systematic reviews provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy.
Objectives: To develop PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement, modified to reflect the particular requirements for reporting DTA systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as PRISMA-DTA for abstracts.
Methods: We followed established standards for guideline development (EQUATOR Network). The PRISMA statement was used as a framework upon which to modify and add material. A group of 24 multi-disciplinary experts used a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines and methods articles, a three-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop PRISMA-DTA. The final version of the PRISMA-DTA checklist was approved by the PRISMA-DTA group. Similar methods were followed to modify PRISMA for abstracts to generate PRISMA-DTA for abstracts.
Results: Systematic review (64 items) and Delphi feedback (six new items proposed and one item split into two) 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, piloting and iterative feedback was used to generate the 27-item PRISMA-DTA checklist. To reflect DTA-specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods, eight of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, two were added and two omitted. A 12-item PRISMA-DTA for abstracts was developed.
Conclusions: PRISMA-DTA provides specific guidance for reporting of DTA systematic reviews. PRISMA-DTA can facilitate transparent reporting of DTA reviews, and may assist evaluations of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results more useful for multiple stakeholders.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Members of the Canadian Task force for Preventive Care and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health participated.
Objectives: To develop PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement, modified to reflect the particular requirements for reporting DTA systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as PRISMA-DTA for abstracts.
Methods: We followed established standards for guideline development (EQUATOR Network). The PRISMA statement was used as a framework upon which to modify and add material. A group of 24 multi-disciplinary experts used a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines and methods articles, a three-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop PRISMA-DTA. The final version of the PRISMA-DTA checklist was approved by the PRISMA-DTA group. Similar methods were followed to modify PRISMA for abstracts to generate PRISMA-DTA for abstracts.
Results: Systematic review (64 items) and Delphi feedback (six new items proposed and one item split into two) 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, piloting and iterative feedback was used to generate the 27-item PRISMA-DTA checklist. To reflect DTA-specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods, eight of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, two were added and two omitted. A 12-item PRISMA-DTA for abstracts was developed.
Conclusions: PRISMA-DTA provides specific guidance for reporting of DTA systematic reviews. PRISMA-DTA can facilitate transparent reporting of DTA reviews, and may assist evaluations of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results more useful for multiple stakeholders.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Members of the Canadian Task force for Preventive Care and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health participated.