Interpretation of preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for abstracts)_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

WANG Weiwei ¹ , YANG Zhirong ² , TIAN Jinhui ³ , FENG Lei ^1,4 , GUO Mengyu ⁵ ,  WANG Gang ^1,4 ,  SUN Feng ^6,7 , ZHAN Siyan ^6,7,8

1. The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders & Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100088, P.R.China;
2. Primary Care Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK;
3. Evidence-based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;
4. Advanced Innovation Center for Human Brain Protection, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, P.R.China;
5. Development Center for Medical Science and Technology National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China, Beijing 100044, P.R.China;
6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, P.R.China;
7. Center of Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Research, Peking University, Beijing 100191, P.R.China;
8. Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

WANG Gang, Email: gangwangdoc@ccmu.edu.cn; SUN Feng, Email: sunfeng@bjmu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Diagnostic test accuracy; Systematic review; PRISMA-DTA for abstracts; Interpretation

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202106041

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

This paper introduced the preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for abstracts), which was published in BMJ in March 2021. This paper presented the 12 items of checklist, explanations, and examples of complete reporting, to help domestic researchers to report complete and informative abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Citation： WANG Weiwei, YANG Zhirong, TIAN Jinhui, FENG Lei, GUO Mengyu, WANG Gang, SUN Feng, ZHAN Siyan. Interpretation of preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for abstracts). Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2021, 21(10): 1235-1240. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202106041 Copy

1.	Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, et al. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol, 2014, 32(36): 4120-4126.
2.	Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Boutron I, et al. Reporting guidelines for journal and conference abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 124: 186-192.
3.	McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA, 2018, 319(4): 388-396.
4.	Salameh JP, Bossuyt PM, McGrath TA, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist. BMJ, 2020, 370: m2632.
5.	Salameh JP, McInnes MDF, Moher D, et al. Completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy based on the PRISMA-DTA reporting guideline. Clin Chem, 2019, 65(2): 291-301.
6.	Cohen JF, Deeks JJ, Hooft L, et al. Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration. BMJ, 2021, 372: n265.
7.	Lisboa BM, Tavaziva G, Abidi SK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 2020, 370: m2516.
8.	van Enst WA, Naaktgeboren CA, Ochodo EA, et al. Small-study effects and time trends in diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study. Syst Rev, 2015, 4: 66.
9.	Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Wang J, et al. Meta-epidemiologic study showed frequent time trends in summary estimates from meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 77: 60-67.
10.	Sharifabadi AD, Korevaar DA, McGrath TA, et al. Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(9): 3632-3639.
11.	Vollgraff Heidweiller-Schreurs CA, Korevaar DA, Mol BWJ, et al. Publication bias may exist among prognostic accuracy studies of middle cerebral artery Doppler ultrasound. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 116: 1-8.
12.	Cherpak LA, Korevaar DA, McGrath TA, et al. Publication bias: association of diagnostic accuracy in radiology conference abstracts with full-text publication. Radiology, 2019, 292(1): 120-126.
13.	Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA, 1999, 282(11): 1061-1066.
14.	Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med, 2004, 140(3): 189-202.
15.	Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8): 529-536.
16.	Ochodo EA, van Enst WA, Naaktgeboren CA, et al. Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14: 33.
17.	McGrath TA, McInnes MD, Korevaar DA, et al. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in imaging journals: analysis of pooling techniques and their effect on summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Radiology, 2016, 281(1): 78-85.
18.	Simel DL, Bossuyt PM. Differences between univariate and bivariate models for summarizing diagnostic accuracy may not be large. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(12): 1292-1300.
19.	Naaktgeboren CA, Ochodo EA, Van Enst WA, et al. Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2016, 16: 6.
20.	McGrath TA, McInnes MDF, van Es N, et al. Overinterpretation of research findings: evidence of "Spin" in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem, 2017, 63(8): 1353-1362.
21.	McGrath TA, Bowdridge JC, Prager R, et al. Overinterpretation of research findings: evaluation of "Spin" in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact factor journals. Clin Chem, 2020, 66(7): 915-924.
22.	Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, et al. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019, (8): MR000047.
23.	Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30, 000 records and counting. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 32.
24.	Rombey T, Doni K, Hoffmann F, et al. More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records' status was up-to-date. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 117: 60-67.
25.	Tricco AC, Cogo E, Page MJ, et al. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 79: 46-54.
26.	Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med. 1987, 106(4): 598-604.
27.	Whiting P, Davenport C. Understanding test accuracy research: a test consequence graphic. Diagn Progn Res, 2018, 2: 2.
28.	Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, et al. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. CMAJ, 1994, 150(10): 1611-1615.

1. Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, et al. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol, 2014, 32(36): 4120-4126.
2. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Boutron I, et al. Reporting guidelines for journal and conference abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 124: 186-192.
3. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA, 2018, 319(4): 388-396.
4. Salameh JP, Bossuyt PM, McGrath TA, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist. BMJ, 2020, 370: m2632.
5. Salameh JP, McInnes MDF, Moher D, et al. Completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy based on the PRISMA-DTA reporting guideline. Clin Chem, 2019, 65(2): 291-301.
6. Cohen JF, Deeks JJ, Hooft L, et al. Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration. BMJ, 2021, 372: n265.
7. Lisboa BM, Tavaziva G, Abidi SK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 2020, 370: m2516.
8. van Enst WA, Naaktgeboren CA, Ochodo EA, et al. Small-study effects and time trends in diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study. Syst Rev, 2015, 4: 66.
9. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Wang J, et al. Meta-epidemiologic study showed frequent time trends in summary estimates from meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 77: 60-67.
10. Sharifabadi AD, Korevaar DA, McGrath TA, et al. Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(9): 3632-3639.
11. Vollgraff Heidweiller-Schreurs CA, Korevaar DA, Mol BWJ, et al. Publication bias may exist among prognostic accuracy studies of middle cerebral artery Doppler ultrasound. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 116: 1-8.
12. Cherpak LA, Korevaar DA, McGrath TA, et al. Publication bias: association of diagnostic accuracy in radiology conference abstracts with full-text publication. Radiology, 2019, 292(1): 120-126.
13. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA, 1999, 282(11): 1061-1066.
14. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med, 2004, 140(3): 189-202.
15. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8): 529-536.
16. Ochodo EA, van Enst WA, Naaktgeboren CA, et al. Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14: 33.
17. McGrath TA, McInnes MD, Korevaar DA, et al. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in imaging journals: analysis of pooling techniques and their effect on summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Radiology, 2016, 281(1): 78-85.
18. Simel DL, Bossuyt PM. Differences between univariate and bivariate models for summarizing diagnostic accuracy may not be large. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(12): 1292-1300.
19. Naaktgeboren CA, Ochodo EA, Van Enst WA, et al. Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2016, 16: 6.
20. McGrath TA, McInnes MDF, van Es N, et al. Overinterpretation of research findings: evidence of "Spin" in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem, 2017, 63(8): 1353-1362.
21. McGrath TA, Bowdridge JC, Prager R, et al. Overinterpretation of research findings: evaluation of "Spin" in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact factor journals. Clin Chem, 2020, 66(7): 915-924.
22. Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, et al. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019, (8): MR000047.
23. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30, 000 records and counting. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 32.
24. Rombey T, Doni K, Hoffmann F, et al. More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records' status was up-to-date. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 117: 60-67.
25. Tricco AC, Cogo E, Page MJ, et al. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 79: 46-54.
26. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med. 1987, 106(4): 598-604.
27. Whiting P, Davenport C. Understanding test accuracy research: a test consequence graphic. Diagn Progn Res, 2018, 2: 2.
28. Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, et al. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. CMAJ, 1994, 150(10): 1611-1615.

Previous Article
Mendelian randomization: the basic principles, methods and limitations

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Interpretation of preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for abstracts)

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content