Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29017574›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review.

Trevor A McGrath, Mostafa Alabousi, Becky Skidmore, Daniël A Korevaar, Patrick M M Bossuyt, David Moher, Brett Thombs, Matthew D F McInnes

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 35 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 35 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 35 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Trevor A McGrathFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Mostafa AlabousiDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Becky SkidmoreOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Daniël A KorevaarDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Patrick M M BossuytDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
David MoherClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Brett ThombsLady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital and Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Matthew D F McInnesUniversity of Ottawa Department of Radiology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Room c159 Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. mmcinnes@toh.on.ca.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study is to perform a systematic review of existing guidance on quality of reporting and methodology for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) in order to compile a list of potential items that might be included in a reporting guideline for such reviews: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).

methodsStudy protocol published on EQUATOR website. Articles in full text or abstract form that reported on any aspect of reporting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy were eligible for inclusion. We used the Ovid platform to search Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Embase Classic+Embase through May 5, 2016. The Cochrane Methodology Register in the Cochrane Library (Wiley version) was also searched. Title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening of all search results was performed independently by two investigators. Guideline organization websites, published guidance statements, and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy were also searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) were assessed independently by two investigators for relevant items.

resultsThe literature searched yielded 6967 results; 386 were included after title and abstract screening and 203 after full-text screening. After reviewing the existing literature and guidance documents, a preliminary list of 64 items was compiled into the following categories: title (three items); introduction (two items); methods (35 items); results (13 items); discussion (nine items), and disclosure (two items).

conclusionItems on the methods and reporting of DTA systematic reviews in the present systematic review will provide a basis for generating a PRISMA extension for DTA systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques and ProceduresGuidelines as TopicReview Literature as TopicChecklistHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29017574
PMCPMC5633882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.