Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

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

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

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

This 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).

Methods

Study 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.

Results

The 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).

Conclusion

Items 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.

Available only for authorised users

Singh H, Graber ML. Improving diagnosis in health care—the next imperative for patient safety. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2493–5.CrossRefPubMed

McInnes MD, Bossuyt PM. Pitfalls of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in imaging research. Radiology. 2015;277:13–21.CrossRefPubMed

Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293:2362–6.CrossRefPubMed

Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323:334–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. National Academies Press (US); 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209539/.

McGrath TA, McInnes MD, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PM. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in imaging journals: analysis of pooling techniques and their effect on summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Radiology. 2016;281:78–85.CrossRefPubMed

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1341–5.CrossRefPubMed

Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Nasser M, Bossuyt PM, Korevaar DA, Graham ID, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2016;387:1573–86.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology. 2013;269:413–26.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Macaskill P GC, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y.: Chapter 10: analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. In: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010. http://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/handbook-dta-reviews.

14.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM, Group Q. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou SI, Martins WP. Synthesizing Evidence from Diagnostic Accuracy TEsts: the SEDATE guideline. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47:386–95.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM, Group CDTAW. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:889–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

McGrath T, McInnes M, Langer F, Hong J, Korevaar D, Bossuyt P. Treatment of multiple test readers in diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of imaging studies. Eur J Radiol. 2017;93:59–64.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. In: 1.0.0 edn: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.

19.

Reporting Guidelines under development. [http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/ - 99]. Last access: 14 Sept 2017.

20.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research [https://www.equator-network.org]. Last access: 14 Sept 2017.

22.

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, Group P-P: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015, 349:g7647.

25.

Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G, Tierney JF, Group P-ID. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015;313:1657–65.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, O'Neill J, Waters E, White H. Group P-EB: PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001333.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, Gøtzsche PC, Lasserson T, Tovey D, Group PfA. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2015;277:826–32.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2:e1350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, Davies P, Kleijnen J, Churchill R, group R. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, Lasserson T, Tovey D: Methodlogical standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013. http://methods.cochrane.org/mecir.

32.

Quality AfHRa: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 2008.

33.

Research IoMUCoSfSRoCE: Finding What Works in Health Care: standards for systematic reviews. National Academies Press; 2011. https://www.nap.edu/read/13059/chapter/1.

34.

Dissemination CfRa: Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York University; 2009. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf.

35.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–34.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Takwoingi Y, Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ. Empirical evidence of the importance of comparative studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:544–54.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Menten J, Lesaffre E. A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Leeflang MM, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM. Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ. 2013;185:E537–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Staub LP, Dyer S, Lord SJ, Simes RJ. Linking the evidence: intermediate outcomes in medical test assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:52–8.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Naaktgeboren CA, van Enst WA, Ochodo EA, de Groot JA, Hooft L, Leeflang MM, Bossuyt PM, Moons KG, Reitsma JB. Systematic overview finds variation in approaches to investigating and reporting on sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1200–9.CrossRefPubMed

42.

McGrath TA, McInnes MDF, van Es N, Leeflang MMG, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PMM. Overinterpretation of research findings: evidence of “spin” in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2017;

43.

Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, Michie S, Moher D, Wager E. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267–76.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Takwoingi Y, Riley RD, Deeks JJ. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health. Evid Based Ment Health. 2015;18:103–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Riley RD, Ahmed I, Debray TP, Willis BH, Noordzij JP, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Summarising and validating test accuracy results across multiple studies for use in clinical practice. Stat Med. 2015;34:2081–103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Westwood M, Whiting P: Should systematic reviews of diagnostic tests go beyond test accuracy? In 16th Cochrane Colloquium: evidence in the era of globalisation; Freiburg, Germany. 2008. https://www.york.ac.uk/inst//crd/Posters/Should%20systematic%20reviews%20of%20diagnostic%20tests%20go%20beyond%20test%20accuracy.pdf.

47.

Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, Irwig L, Levine D, Reitsma JB, de Vet HC, Bossuyt PM. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012799.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

McInnes M, Moher D, Bossuyt P: Development and implementation of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA initiative. 2016.

49.

Willis BH, Quigley M. Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review
Authors: Trevor A. McGrath
Mostafa Alabousi
Becky Skidmore
Daniël A. Korevaar
Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
David Moher
Brett Thombs
Matthew D. F. McInnes
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0590-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

The effects of dietary and lifestyle interventions among pregnant women who are overweight or obese on longer-term maternal and early childhood outcomes: protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012–2016: protocol for a systematic review

Transition in care from paramedics to emergency department nurses: a systematic review protocol

A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results

Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?—two systematic reviews

Strategies to improve the quality of life of persons post-stroke: protocol of a systematic review