Assessing Adherence to the PRISMA-DTA Guideline in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews: A Five-Year Follow-up Analysis.

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Jean-Paul Salameh, David Moher, Trevor A McGrath, Robert A Frank, Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi, Nabil Islam, Eric Lam, Robert Adamo, Haben Dawit, Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita, Brooke Levis, Brett D Thombs, Patrick M Bossuyt, Matthew D F McInnes
{"title":"Assessing Adherence to the PRISMA-DTA Guideline in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews: A Five-Year Follow-up Analysis.","authors":"Jean-Paul Salameh, David Moher, Trevor A McGrath, Robert A Frank, Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi, Nabil Islam, Eric Lam, Robert Adamo, Haben Dawit, Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita, Brooke Levis, Brett D Thombs, Patrick M Bossuyt, Matthew D F McInnes","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We evaluated reporting of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for abstracts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE for recent DTA systematic reviews (September 2023-Mar 2024) to achieve a sample size of 100. Analyses evaluated adherence to PRISMA-DTA (and abstracts), on a per-item basis. Association of reporting with journal, country, impact factor (IF), index-test type, subspecialty area, use of supplemental material, PRISMA citation, word count, and PRISMA adoption was evaluated. Comparison to the baseline evaluation from 2019 was done. Protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P25TE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall adherence (n = 100) was 78% (20.3/26.0 items, SD = 2.0) for PRISMA-DTA and 52% (5.7/11.0 items, SD = 1.6) for abstracts. Infrequently reported items (<33% of studies): eligibility criteria, definitions for data extraction, synthesis of results, and characteristics of the included studies. Infrequently reported items in abstracts were characteristics of the included studies, strengths and limitations, and funding. Reporting completeness for full text was minimally higher in studies in higher IF journals [20.7 vs 19.8 items; 95% confidence interval (95%CI) (0.09; 1.77)], as well as studies that cited PRISMA [21.1 vs 20.1 items; 95%CI (0.04; 1.95)], or used supplemental material (20.7 vs 19.2 items; 95%CI (0.63; 2.35)]. Variability in reporting was not associated with author country, journal, abstract word count limitations, PRISMA adoption, structured abstracts, study design, subspecialty, open-access status, or index test. No association with word counts was observed among full text or abstracts. Compared to the baseline evaluation, reporting was improved for full texts [71% to 78%; 95%CI (1.18; 2.26)] but not for abstracts [50% to 52%; 95%CI (-0.20; 0.60)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to the baseline evaluation published in 2019, we observed modest improved adherence to PRISMA-DTA and no improvement in PRISMA-DTA for abstracts reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We evaluated reporting of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for abstracts.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE for recent DTA systematic reviews (September 2023-Mar 2024) to achieve a sample size of 100. Analyses evaluated adherence to PRISMA-DTA (and abstracts), on a per-item basis. Association of reporting with journal, country, impact factor (IF), index-test type, subspecialty area, use of supplemental material, PRISMA citation, word count, and PRISMA adoption was evaluated. Comparison to the baseline evaluation from 2019 was done. Protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P25TE.

Results: Overall adherence (n = 100) was 78% (20.3/26.0 items, SD = 2.0) for PRISMA-DTA and 52% (5.7/11.0 items, SD = 1.6) for abstracts. Infrequently reported items (<33% of studies): eligibility criteria, definitions for data extraction, synthesis of results, and characteristics of the included studies. Infrequently reported items in abstracts were characteristics of the included studies, strengths and limitations, and funding. Reporting completeness for full text was minimally higher in studies in higher IF journals [20.7 vs 19.8 items; 95% confidence interval (95%CI) (0.09; 1.77)], as well as studies that cited PRISMA [21.1 vs 20.1 items; 95%CI (0.04; 1.95)], or used supplemental material (20.7 vs 19.2 items; 95%CI (0.63; 2.35)]. Variability in reporting was not associated with author country, journal, abstract word count limitations, PRISMA adoption, structured abstracts, study design, subspecialty, open-access status, or index test. No association with word counts was observed among full text or abstracts. Compared to the baseline evaluation, reporting was improved for full texts [71% to 78%; 95%CI (1.18; 2.26)] but not for abstracts [50% to 52%; 95%CI (-0.20; 0.60)].

Conclusions: Compared to the baseline evaluation published in 2019, we observed modest improved adherence to PRISMA-DTA and no improvement in PRISMA-DTA for abstracts reporting.

在诊断测试准确性系统评价中评估PRISMA-DTA指南的依从性:一项为期五年的随访分析。
背景:我们使用系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)-DTA和摘要PRISMA-DTA来评估诊断测试准确性(DTA)系统评价的报告。方法:我们在MEDLINE检索最近的DTA系统综述(2023年9月- 2024年3月),样本量为100。分析评估了对PRISMA-DTA(和摘要)的依从性,以每个项目为基础。评估报告与期刊、国家、影响因子(IF)、索引测试类型、亚专业领域、补充材料的使用、PRISMA引用、字数和PRISMA采用的关系。与2019年的基线评估进行比较。方案:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P25TE.Results: PRISMA-DTA的总体依从性(n = 100)为78%(20.3/26.0项,SD = 2.0),摘要为52%(5.7/11.0项,SD = 1.6)。结论:与2019年发表的基线评估相比,我们观察到对PRISMA-DTA的依从性有适度改善,而摘要报告的PRISMA-DTA没有改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信