Cited by 720Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist

Open access
Salameh, Jean-Paul, Bossuyt, Patrick M, McGrath, Trevor A, Thombs, Brett D, Hyde, Christopher J, Macaskill, Petra, Deeks, Jonathan J, Leeflang, Mariska +14 more·2020·BMJ

Abstract

Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are fundamental to the decision making process in evidence based medicine. Although such studies are regarded as high level evidence, these reviews are not always reported completely and transparently. Suboptimal reporting of DTA systematic reviews compromises their validity and generalisability, and subsequently their value to key stakeholders. An extension of the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis) statement was recently developed to improve the reporting quality of DTA systematic reviews. The PRISMA-DTA statement has 27 items, of which eight are unmodified from the original PRISMA statement. This article provides an explanation for the 19 new and modified items, along with their meaning and rationale. Examples of complete reporting are used for each item to illustrate best practices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.m2632

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The PRISMA-LSR reporting guidance is also applicable to living systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating effects of health interventions (eg, those evaluating diagnostic test accuracy, prognostic factors, or prediction models).

    “However, the reporting guidance is also applicable to LSRs with objectives other than evaluating effects of health interventions (eg, those evaluating diagnostic test accuracy, 23 prognostic factors, or prediction models).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [56]56. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, et al. Chapter 10: analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy version 1.0 . https://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/resources- authors. 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salameh, J.-P., Bossuyt, P. M., McGrath, T. A., Thombs, B. D., Hyde, C. J., Macaskill, P., Deeks, J. J., Leeflang, M., Korevaar, D. A., Whiting, P., Takwoingi, Y., Reitsma, J. B., Cohen, J. F., Frank, R. A., Hunt, H. A., Hooft, L., Rutjes, A. W. S., Willis, B. H., Gatsonis, C., Levis, B., Moher, D., & McInnes, M. D. F.
Affiliations
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Jewish General Hospital (CA)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
McInnes, Matthew D F
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-08-14
Volume
370
Pages
m2632
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3049565965
Cited by
719
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 113 · 2025: 146 · 2024: 151 · 2023: 135 · 2022: 109 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 1
FWCI
15.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • University of Ottawa
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (PDF-2017-10-059)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (37575_1)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/N007999/1)
  • Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
diagnostic accuracy, systematic review reporting, reporting guidelines, reporting quality, transparency, reporting checklist, evidence-based medicine
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Editorial Policies, Checklist, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review