Embedded Files
Appraisal of: Li Q, Hou W, Li L, Xu J, Ren Y, Zou K, Tian R, Sun X. Measuring quality of reporting in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in medical imaging: comparison of PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Feb;61(2):257-266. https://doi: 10.1002/uog.26043.
Appraisal of: Li Q, Hou W, Li L, Xu J, Ren Y, Zou K, Tian R, Sun X. Measuring quality of reporting in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in medical imaging: comparison of PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Feb;61(2):257-266. https://doi: 10.1002/uog.26043.
Reviewer(s):
Caroline Higgins
Julie Glanville
Full Reference:
Li Q, Hou W, Li L, Xu J, Ren Y, Zou K, Tian R, Sun X. Measuring quality of reporting in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in medical imaging: comparison of PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Feb;61(2):257-266. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26043.
Short description:
The PRISMA-DTA extension was launched in 2018 to assist researchers in reporting critical elements unique to systematic reviews of DTA studies (DTA SRs). This study aims to understand how well PRISMA-DTA checklist identifies suboptimal reporting and assess its adoption.
A sample of 173 DTA SR studies was identified in a stepwise approach. First, using the Journal Citation Reports, medical imaging journals of high scientific ranking (top 25%), and mid-range impact (50 – 75%), were identified. Authors then searched PubMed for DTA SRs published in 2020 or 2021 in this set of journals. The quality of each DTA SR reporting was assessed, scored, and compared using three checklists: PRISMA-DTA, PRISMA-2009, and PRISMA-2020. Overall, findings confirm PRISMA-DTA as optimal reporting checklist for DTA SRs but also low uptake by researchers and journals.
Of concern to information retrieval, when using the PRISMA-DTA checklist, authors found suboptimal reporting in DTA SRs title (only 27.2% satisfied checklist item requirement), abstract (39.3% satisfied checklist item requirement), and search (28.9% satisfied checklist item requirement).
Limitations stated by the author(s):
Sample used was not a random sample of DTA SRs and was limited to medical imagine journals, and may not be generalizable to other specialty publications. Authors acknowledge using PRISMA checklists to assign an overall scores is not the checklists’ intended purpose. Each checklist version have different structures / items, which makes comparing overall scores between the checklists challenging.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
None.
Study Type:
Single Study
Related Chapters:
Diagnostic accuracy , Documenting and reporting the search process
Tags:
diagnostic accuracy
PRISMA
reporting
Page updated
Report abuse