Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31296260›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).

Trevor A McGrath, David Moher, Matthew D F McInnes

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 9 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. Role of salvage lymph node dissection in patients previously treated for prostate cancer: systematic review.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

3 authors.

Trevor A McGrathDepartment of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8063-289X
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Matthew D F McInnesClinical Epidemiology Program, Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Room c159 Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada. mmcinnes@toh.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8404-4075

Funding

Canadian Institute for Health Research 375751
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reporting standards in biomedical research have been shown to be suboptimal. The publication of the PRISMA statement has improved the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews, but several issues specific to diagnostic test accuracy are not included in the PRISMA statement. Therefore, a diagnostic test accuracy extension of the PRISMA statement, PRISMA-DTA, was created. This commentary addresses completeness of reporting in systematic reviews, the PRISMA-DTA statement, and strategies for optimal uptake of reporting guidelines.

Indexed as

ChecklistMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicBiomedical ResearchDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansReproducibility of ResultsCompleteness of reportingDiagnostic test accuracyPRISMA-DTASystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID31296260
PMCPMC6624884

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.