The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation (2024) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Self-citationGRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Self-citationCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
(2019) · doi:10.1002/9781119536604 · Cited by 14,828
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Self-citationVandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
Self-citationPRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
Self-citationWhiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 10.1373/49.1.7 · DOI · Paper page
- Macaskill P Gatsonis C Deeks J . 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
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C., Caulley, L., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Greenberg, D., Loder, E., et al. (2022) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 · Cited by 847
Negeri, Z., Levis, B., Sun, Y., He, C., Krishnan, A., Wu, Y., Bhandari, P. M., Neupane, D., Brehaut, E., Benedetti, A., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n2183 · Cited by 414
Self-citationMcGenity, C., Clarke, E. L., Jennings, C., Matthews, G., Cartlidge, C., Freduah-Agyemang, H., Stocken, D. D., & Treanor, D. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01106-8 · Cited by 290
Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists
Page, M. J., Moher, D., & McKenzie, J. E. (2021) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1535 · Cited by 312
Self-citationWu, Y., Levis, B., Sun, Y. B., He, C., Krishnan, A., Neupane, D., Bhandari, P. M., Negeri, Z., Benedetti, A., & Thombs, B. D. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n972 · Cited by 292
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- Salameh, Jean-Paul
- Bossuyt, Patrick M
- McGrath, Trevor A
- Thombs, Brett D
- Hyde, Christopher J
- Macaskill, Petra
- Deeks, Jonathan J
- Leeflang, Mariska
- Whiting, Penny
- Takwoingi, Yemisi
- Reitsma, Johannes B
- Cohen, Jérémie F
- Hunt, Harriet A
- Hooft, Lotty
- Rutjes, Anne W S
- Willis, Brian H
- Levis, Brooke
- Moher, David
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- 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
