Quality of reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 according to PRISMA-DTA: A meta-epidemiological survey.
Nicolás Meza, Francisca J Lizana, Mónica Velásquez, Javier Hormazábal, Bruno Morgado, Pablo I Osses-González, Claudia E Silva, Silvana V Villalobos, Vivienne C Bachelet
{"title":"Quality of reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 according to PRISMA-DTA: A meta-epidemiological survey.","authors":"Nicolás Meza, Francisca J Lizana, Mónica Velásquez, Javier Hormazábal, Bruno Morgado, Pablo I Osses-González, Claudia E Silva, Silvana V Villalobos, Vivienne C Bachelet","doi":"10.5867/medwave.2026.04.3219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Systematic reviews are crucial for informing health decisions and supporting evidence-based policymaking. Reporting guidelines aim to reduce ambiguity and confusion while promoting clarity, completeness, and transparency in reporting. Our study aimed to assess the completeness of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews with meta-analysis on rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic using the PRISMA-DTA guideline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a meta-epidemiological survey of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, L·OVE Covid-19, and Web of Science Clarivate, covering the period from inception to April 3, 2025, with no language restrictions. We included reviews that used explicit systematic review methodologies with summary estimates of test sensitivity and specificity. We assessed compliance with the 27 PRISMA-DTA items.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening 5252 publications, we included 38 reviews. We found no PRISMA-DTA item with a low reporting frequency. Regarding the number of items reported, 23 (60%) of the included studies reported over 66%, and 15 (40%) reported between 33% and 66%, with none reporting fewer than 33%. None of the included reviews complied with the full PRISMA-DTA checklist.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-epidemiological survey reveals persistent shortcomings in the reporting quality of systematic reviews evaluating rapid antigen test accuracy for SARS-CoV-2. While some items were consistently addressed, numerous critical domains requiring a deeper understanding of the specific diagnostic test accuracy assessment methods showed low reporting adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":18597,"journal":{"name":"Medwave","volume":"26 4","pages":"e3219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medwave","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2026.04.3219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Systematic reviews are crucial for informing health decisions and supporting evidence-based policymaking. Reporting guidelines aim to reduce ambiguity and confusion while promoting clarity, completeness, and transparency in reporting. Our study aimed to assess the completeness of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews with meta-analysis on rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic using the PRISMA-DTA guideline.
Methods: We conducted a meta-epidemiological survey of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, L·OVE Covid-19, and Web of Science Clarivate, covering the period from inception to April 3, 2025, with no language restrictions. We included reviews that used explicit systematic review methodologies with summary estimates of test sensitivity and specificity. We assessed compliance with the 27 PRISMA-DTA items.
Results: After screening 5252 publications, we included 38 reviews. We found no PRISMA-DTA item with a low reporting frequency. Regarding the number of items reported, 23 (60%) of the included studies reported over 66%, and 15 (40%) reported between 33% and 66%, with none reporting fewer than 33%. None of the included reviews complied with the full PRISMA-DTA checklist.
Conclusions: Our meta-epidemiological survey reveals persistent shortcomings in the reporting quality of systematic reviews evaluating rapid antigen test accuracy for SARS-CoV-2. While some items were consistently addressed, numerous critical domains requiring a deeper understanding of the specific diagnostic test accuracy assessment methods showed low reporting adherence.
系统审查对于卫生决策和支持基于证据的政策制定至关重要。报告准则旨在减少歧义和混淆，同时促进报告的清晰、完整和透明。本研究旨在评估诊断测试准确性系统评价报告的完整性，采用meta分析对COVID-19大流行期间使用的PRISMA-DTA指南进行SARS-CoV-2快速抗原检测。方法：我们对SARS-CoV-2快速抗原检测进行了meta-流行病学调查和系统评价。我们检索了MEDLINE/PubMed、EMBASE、L·OVE Covid-19和Web of Science Clarivate，涵盖了从成立到2025年4月3日这段时间，没有语言限制。我们纳入了使用明确的系统评价方法并对试验敏感性和特异性进行总结估计的综述。我们评估了27个PRISMA-DTA项目的依从性。结果：在筛选5252篇出版物后，我们纳入了38篇综述。我们没有发现低报告频率的PRISMA-DTA项目。关于报告的项目数量，纳入的研究中有23项（60%）报告超过66%，15项（40%）报告在33%至66%之间，没有一项报告少于33%。所有纳入的审查都不符合完整的PRISMA-DTA检查表。结论：我们的荟萃流行病学调查显示，评估SARS-CoV-2快速抗原检测准确性的系统评价报告质量持续存在缺陷。虽然一些项目得到了一致的解决，但许多需要深入了解特定诊断测试准确性评估方法的关键领域显示出较低的报告依从性。
期刊介绍：
Medwave is a peer-reviewed, biomedical and public health journal. Since its foundation in 2001 (Volume 1) it has always been an online only, open access publication that does not charge subscription or reader fees. Since January 2011 (Volume 11, Number 1), all articles are peer-reviewed. Without losing sight of the importance of evidence-based approach and methodological soundness, the journal accepts for publication articles that focus on providing updates for clinical practice, review and analysis articles on topics such as ethics, public health and health policy; clinical, social and economic health determinants; clinical and health research findings from all of the major disciplines of medicine, medical science and public health. The journal does not publish basic science manuscripts or experiments conducted on animals. Until March 2013, Medwave was publishing 11-12 numbers a year. Each issue would be posted on the homepage on day 1 of each month, except for Chile’s summer holiday when the issue would cover two months. Starting from April 2013, Medwave adopted the continuous mode of publication, which means that the copyedited accepted articles are posted on the journal’s homepage as they are ready. They are then collated in the respective issue and included in the Past Issues section.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
