Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist.
Options
BORIS DOI
Date of Publication
August 14, 2020
Publication Type
Article
Division/Institute
Author
Salameh, Jean-Paul | |
Bossuyt, Patrick M | |
McGrath, Trevor A | |
Thombs, Brett D | |
Hyde, Christopher J | |
Macaskill, Petra | |
Deeks, Jonathan J | |
Leeflang, Mariska | |
Korevaar, Daniël A | |
Whiting, Penny | |
Takwoingi, Yemisi | |
Reitsma, Johannes B | |
Cohen, Jérémie F | |
Frank, Robert A | |
Hunt, Harriet A | |
Hooft, Lotty | |
Willis, Brian H | |
Gatsonis, Constantine | |
Levis, Brooke | |
Moher, David | |
McInnes, Matthew D F |
Series
BMJ
ISSN or ISBN (if monograph)
1756-1833
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
Language
English
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
32816740
Description
Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are fundamental to the decision making process in evidence based medicine. Although such studies are regarded as high level evidence, these reviews are not always reported completely and transparently. Suboptimal reporting of DTA systematic reviews compromises their validity and generalisability, and subsequently their value to key stakeholders. An extension of the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis) statement was recently developed to improve the reporting quality of DTA systematic reviews. The PRISMA-DTA statement has 27 items, of which eight are unmodified from the original PRISMA statement. This article provides an explanation for the 19 new and modified items, along with their meaning and rationale. Examples of complete reporting are used for each item to illustrate best practices.
File(s)
File | File Type | Format | Size | License | Publisher/Copright statement | Content | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Salameh BMJ 2020.pdf | Adobe PDF | 279.74 KB | published |