[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
Purchase Options:
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.
Study Flow Diagram Documenting the Delphi Process
Study Flow Diagram Documenting the Delphi Process

DTA indicates diagnostic test accuracy; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

aOne item from round 1 was split into 2 items for round 2.

Table 1.  
Rationale for Modification of the Original Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Studiesa
Rationale for Modification of the Original Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Studiesa
Table 2.  
Checklist for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Studies
Checklist for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Studies
Table 3.  
Abstract Checklist for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Studies
Abstract Checklist for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Studies
1.
McInnes  MD, Bossuyt  PM.  Pitfalls of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in imaging research.  Radiology. 2015;277(1):13-21.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
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(9):e1000326.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Glasziou  P, Altman  DG, Bossuyt  P,  et al.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.  Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-276.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
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(2):413-426.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
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(1):78-85.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Naaktgeboren  CA, van Enst  WA, Ochodo  EA,  et al.  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(11):1200-1209.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Ochodo  EA, van Enst  WA, Naaktgeboren  CA,  et al.  Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:33.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Naaktgeboren  CA, Ochodo  EA, Van Enst  WA,  et al.  Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):6.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
McGrath  TA, McInnes  MDF, Langer  FW, Hong  J, Korevaar  DA, Bossuyt  PMM.  Treatment of multiple test readers in diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews-meta-analyses of imaging studies.  Eur J Radiol. 2017;93:59-64.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG; PRISMA Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006-1012.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Liberati  A, Altman  DG, Tetzlaff  J,  et al.  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(10):e1-e34.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Macaskill  PGC, Deeks  JJ, Harbord  RM, Takwoingi  Y. Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks  JJ, Bossuyt  PM, Gatsonis  C, eds.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Oxford, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2010.
15.
Whiting  PF, Rutjes  AW, Westwood  ME,  et al; QUADAS-2 Group.  QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.  Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Bossuyt  PM, Reitsma  JB, Bruns  DE,  et al; STARD Group.  STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.  Radiology. 2015;277(3):826-832.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Equator Network. Reporting guidelines under development. http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#99. Accessed November 28, 2014.
18.
Moher  D, Schulz  KF, Simera  I, Altman  DG.  Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.  PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
McGrath  TA, Alabousi  M, Skidmore  B,  et al.  Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review.  Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):194.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Trevelyan  E, Robinson  N.  Delphi methodology in health research: how to do it?  Eur J Integr Med. 2015;7:423-428.Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Boulkedid  R, Abdoul  H, Loustau  M, Sibony  O, Alberti  C.  Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review.  PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Whiting  P, Savović  J, Higgins  JP,  et al; ROBIS Group.  ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-234.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Korevaar  DA, Cohen  JF, Reitsma  JB,  et al.  Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015 [published online June 7, 2016].  Res Integr Peer Rev. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0014-7Google Scholar
24.
Cohen  JF, Korevaar  DA, Gatsonis  CA,  et al; STARD Group.  STARD for abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts.  BMJ. 2017;358:j3751.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Korevaar  DA, Bossuyt  PM, Hooft  L.  Infrequent and incomplete registration of test accuracy studies: analysis of recent study reports.  BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e004596.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Korevaar  DA, Cohen  JF, Spijker  R,  et al.  Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:96-103.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Deeks  J, Bossuyt  P, Gatsonis  C.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. 1.0.0 ed. Oxford, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.
28.
van Enst  WA, Ochodo  E, Scholten  RJ, Hooft  L, Leeflang  MM.  Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:70.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Deeks  JJ, Macaskill  P, Irwig  L.  The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):882-893.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Cohen  JF, Korevaar  DA, Altman  DG,  et al.  STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.  BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
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;63(8):1353-1362.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Rutter  CM, Gatsonis  CA.  A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations.  Stat Med. 2001;20(19):2865-2884.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Reitsma  JB, Glas  AS, Rutjes  AW, Scholten  RJ, Bossuyt  PM, Zwinderman  AH.  Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(10):982-990.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Dinnes  J, Mallett  S, Hopewell  S, Roderick  PJ, Deeks  JJ.  The Moses-Littenberg meta-analytical method generates systematic differences in test accuracy compared to hierarchical meta-analytical models.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;80:77-87.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Irwig  L, Macaskill  P, Glasziou  P, Fahey  M.  Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):119-130.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Lijmer  JG, Mol  BW, Heisterkamp  S,  et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.  JAMA. 1999;282(11):1061-1066.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Zwinderman  AH, Glas  AS, Bossuyt  PM, Florie  J, Bipat  S, Stoker  J.  Statistical models for quantifying diagnostic accuracy with multiple lesions per patient.  Biostatistics. 2008;9(3):513-522.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Beller  EM, Glasziou  PP, Altman  DG,  et al; PRISMA for Abstracts Group.  PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts.  PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
de Vet  HCW, Eisinga  A, Riphagen  II, Aertgeerts  B, Pewsner  D. Searching for studies. In:  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 0.4. Oxford, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
40.
Hong  PJ, Korevaar  DA, McGrath  TA,  et al.  Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: adherence to STARD 2015 [published online June 22, 2017].  J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.1002/jmri.25797PubMedGoogle Scholar
Special Communication
January 23/30, 2018

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy StudiesThe PRISMA-DTA Statement

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • 2Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • 3Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • 4Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • 5University of Ottawa Department of Radiology, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • 6Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
JAMA. 2018;319(4):388-396. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163
Key Points

Question  What items should be reported to allow readers to evaluate the validity and applicability and to enhance the replicability of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies?

Findings  This diagnostic test accuracy guideline is an extension of the original Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Two PRISMA items have been omitted, 2 were added, and 17 were modified to reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Meaning  The guideline checklist can facilitate transparent reporting of reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies, and may help assist evaluations of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results more useful for clinicians, journal editors, reviewers, guideline authors, and funders.

Abstract

Importance  Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy.

Objective  To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews.

Design  Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group.

Findings  The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted.

Conclusions and Relevance  The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

Introduction

Quiz Ref IDSystematic reviews can advance the understanding of diagnostic test accuracy. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary studies to provide insight into the ability of medical tests to detect a target condition; they also can provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability.1 The number of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies has increased rapidly; however, they are often not reported completely, which has contributed to “a crisis of repeatability.”2-5

Reporting of systematic reviews should be complete and informative to enable readers to assess the quality of methods and the validity of the findings. Published systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy often have been uninformative and of heterogeneous quality.4,6,7 They demonstrate variability in approaches to fundamental methodological steps, including methods to assess risk of bias, assessment of between-study variability, and methods for combining data across studies.7-11

Quiz Ref IDTo improve the reporting of systematic reviews, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was published, which contained a 27-item checklist and flow diagram.12 The initial PRISMA guideline was focused on improving the quality of systematic reviews of intervention studies; the authors of the original PRISMA statement suggested modification for diagnostic test accuracy reviews.13 Although systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies share elements with those of intervention studies, there are important differences. Study design and measures of effect differ from those of randomized clinical trials. Accuracy can differ between studies due to differences in patients, setting, prior testing, and use of different reference standards. Consequently, the methods for evaluating risk of bias, summarizing results, and exploring variability for diagnostic test accuracy studies differ from those used for intervention studies. As such, some PRISMA items are not appropriate for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies, others need adaptation, and some areas may not be covered.1,14,15

We aimed to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement, modified to reflect the particular requirements for the reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies in systematic reviews. A secondary objective was to identify items that should be included in the abstracts of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Methods

After establishing the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy executive group, which was composed of the lead author of the PRISMA statement (D.M.),12 the lead author of the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) (P.M.B.),16 and an experienced author, reviewer, and editor of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies (M.D.F.M.), a number of experts were contacted to join the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy group and assist with the project (all contacted experts agreed to participate). The goal was to assemble a team of experts in diagnostic test accuracy research and systematic review methods, complemented by authors, journal editors, funders, and users of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. The 24 members and their relevant expertise appear in eTable 1 in the Supplement.

The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy executive group registered the protocol. Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network17 were followed in the development of the guideline; no major deviations from the protocol occurred.18 The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy group used the original PRISMA statement12 as a starting point and endeavored to identify items that needed to be added, removed, or modified to improve systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Details of the systematic review for item generation have been published elsewhere.19 To identify articles pertaining to the methods or reporting quality of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies, searches of multiple databases and existing sources of guidance (eg, PRISMA, STARD 2015)12,16 were performed. After performing data extraction from these reports, potential PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy items were categorized according to specific reporting topics: general overview, quality of reporting, search, variability, pooling methods, publication bias, risk of bias, and other. This list of potential PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy items was presented during the first round of the Delphi process.

Delphi Process

A 3-round Delphi process was held between December 2016 and March 2017 in which all members of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy group were invited to participate.20,21 This modified Delphi process has been used previously for similar work such as Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and STARD 2015.22,23 The aim of the process was to achieve consensus on essential items that should be included in the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline and to identify items that required discussion at the consensus meeting.

During each round of the survey process, potential essential items were proposed, and participants were asked to score each item on a Likert scale anchored at (1) “not essential to report in a systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy studies” and (5) “essential to report in a systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy studies.” Likert scores of 1 to 2 were categorized as a low score (item should not be part of PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline); 3, moderate (item should be discussed), 4 to 5, high score (item should be part of PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline). For an item to meet consensus, more than 66% of the Delphi respondents (>15 of 23) needed to rate 1 of these 3 categories; this threshold was based on what was used for previous reporting guidelines.24

During round 1 of the Delphi process, all items identified during the systematic review step were proposed.19 Participants were also asked to suggest any additional items that were potentially relevant to report in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Round 2 of the survey included any items that did not reach consensus during round 1, and any new items suggested by at least 1 respondent during round 1. As with round 2, round 3 involved items that did not reach consensus during rounds 1 or 2.

Following each of the 3 rounds, the mode (most frequent) score for each item was tabulated. Items were categorized as follows: (1) mode score of 1 to 3 but for less than 66% of participants, proceed to next round of Delphi process (or to a meeting discussion if this occurred during round 3 of the Delphi process); (2) consensus score of 1 or 2, do not include; (3) consensus score of 3, discuss at meeting; (4) mode score of 4 or 5 but for less than 66% of participants, discuss at meeting; and (5) consensus score of 4 or 5, include in PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline (but discuss at meeting to confirm exact wording). All participants were provided an anonymized summary of the results after each round of the process. The survey was administered by SurveyMonkey Inc.

Consensus Meeting

A 2-day consensus meeting was held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in May 2017 and all members of the executive and PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy group were invited to attend. The main objective of this meeting was to agree on items for which no consensus was reached during the Delphi survey process and to generate a preliminary PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist guideline (and a guideline for abstracts). For the items that reached consensus for inclusion prior to the meeting, the precise wording of the items was decided.

Checklist Pilot

Following the meeting, members of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy group reviewed and applied the checklist to ongoing systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies to identify any practical challenges with any of the items and to inform the writing of the statement. This included formal pilot testing by a graduate student (J-P.S.) of the preliminary checklist used to assess published systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

In addition, multiple potential users and interested parties (such as authors of systematic reviews and attendees of an author training course on conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies) were invited to review and apply the preliminary checklist to assess utility and clarity of wording. Feedback from these pilot exercises was used to refine wording and presentation of the checklist. Formal feedback was gathered via a survey administered via SurveyMonkey, which was sent to the entire PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy group. Additional feedback was gathered via email correspondence. All sources of feedback were used to modify and inform the final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist.

A further explanation and elaboration document will subsequently be developed to provide additional detail regarding the rationale for the items and examples. Based on government and institutional guidelines, this type of study does not require research ethics board approval.

Results
Delphi Process

Twenty-three of 23 individuals (100%) completed all 3 rounds of the Delphi process (participation is documented in eTable 1 in the Supplement). During round 1, the group evaluated 64 items identified by the systematic review (Figure). Forty-two items met consensus for inclusion, 20 items were moved forward to round 2, 2 items were excluded, and an additional 6 items were suggested for inclusion for round 2.

During round 2, the group assessed 27 items (1 item from round 1 was split into 2). There were 5 items that met consensus for inclusion, 15 items were moved forward to round 3, and 7 items were excluded. During round 3, no items met consensus for inclusion, 13 items were moved forward to the consensus meeting, and 2 items were excluded. Overall, after 3 Delphi rounds, 47 items were included (final wording to be discussed at the face-to-face consensus meeting), 13 items were moved forward to the consensus meeting to discuss inclusion or exclusion, and 11 items were excluded.

A list of the 11 excluded items appears in eTable 2 in the Supplement. Even though these items are considered relevant to the reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies, they were considered to be either too detailed for a minimum reporting guideline or not relevant depending on the scope or purpose of the review. Several of these items will be discussed further in the forthcoming explanation and elaboration document.

Consensus Meeting

Meeting attendance (n = 18) and the agenda are documented in eTables 1 and 3 in the Supplement, respectively. Of the 60 items discussed at the meeting, 27 were excluded. Excluded items and the rationale for exclusion are provided in eTable 2 in the Supplement.

Items 15 and 22 from the original 27-item PRISMA checklist were confirmed for removal. These items refer to the evaluation and reporting of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence such as publication bias and selective reporting within studies. They were excluded for 2 main reasons. First, there is only limited evidence that publication or reporting bias is a major issue for primary diagnostic test accuracy studies.25,26 As such, the rationale for mandating evaluation of bias in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies is not as strong as for reviews of intervention studies. Second, there is no appropriate test with adequate statistical power to reliably assess publication bias in the context of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.27-29

The remaining 33 items were discussed and synthesized into a draft checklist for PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy. Many of the items were combined to reduce redundancy between items and to minimize the total number of items. The PRISMA flow diagram was also reviewed at the consensus meeting and no modifications for PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy were deemed necessary.

Compared with the original PRISMA checklist, 2 new items were added. The first, labeled item D1, regards the statement of the scientific and clinical background, including the intended use and clinical role of the index test, and if applicable, the rationale for minimally acceptable test accuracy (or minimum difference in accuracy for comparative reviews). The rationale for inclusion is 2-fold. First, the role of the index test is critical to understanding the place of a test in the diagnostic pathway; diagnostic accuracy can vary importantly depending on the clinical scenario. Without this information, generalizability of the results to the clinical setting may be limited.16,30 Second, identifying minimally acceptable test accuracy may be helpful in forming conclusions. Whether a test is considered clinically useful cannot be determined by a diagnostic accuracy measure alone; its accuracy relative to alternative tests or management strategies must be considered, as well as the downstream consequences of false-positive and false-negative results. As such, considering external evidence to form criteria for minimally acceptable test accuracy standards may play an important role in forming the purpose of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.16,30,31

Defining minimally acceptable test accuracy (or minimum difference) may not always be appropriate depending on the review question. For example, if a test is not yet well established or understood, the purpose of the review might be to evaluate reasons for variability in accuracy. For this reason, we have added the qualifier if applicable to this item.

The second new item is labeled item D2 and regards the reporting of the statistical methods used for the meta-analyses if performed. Meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies typically require multivariate models (eg, bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic), which allow for the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity due to the positivity threshold, for potential correlation between estimates of sensitivity and specificity across studies, and for variability through the inclusion of random effects.32,33 Traditional univariate methods ignore this correlation and can give misleading results.5,34,35 We acknowledge that there are instances when univariate methods may be appropriate (eg, if the specificity of a test is set at 100%, or if the focus of the review is univariate meta-analysis of sensitivity). As such, reporting the method used for meta-analysis (if done) was considered essential for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Eight of the original PRISMA items (3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 27) were not modified because they were considered to be equally applicable to systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Seventeen of the original PRISMA items (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11-14, 18-21, and 23-26) were adapted. The reasons for modification varied. The 2 major reasons were (1) there was unclear or ambiguous wording in the original PRISMA statement that required updating and (2) modified wording was necessary due to specific issues for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Table 1 lists the rationale for modification of the original PRISMA items for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Further explanation and elaboration on the rationale and evidence will be provided in the forthcoming explanation and elaboration document.

At the consensus meeting, the original PRISMA checklist for abstracts was modified for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.38 The total number of items was preserved (n = 12). Five items were not modified (4, 6, 10-12). One item was deleted (8, which was a description of the effect) because effect size is only relevant to intervention studies.1,27 One new item was added (labeled A1, which regards synthesis of results) and corresponds to new item D2 in the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. Six items were modified (1-3, 5, 7, and 9) to reflect the modified language for the corresponding items in the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist.

Pilot Testing and Revision

Thirty-seven points of feedback from the pilot exercise were received via email and formal survey. This feedback was considered by the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy executive group and used to modify 5 of the items and add further explanation and rationale.

Final Checklists

The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist appears in Table 2. The new checklist has the same number of items as the original PRISMA checklist because 2 items were deleted (items 15 and 22) and 2 items were added (items D1 and D2); therefore, the numbering from the original PRISMA statement is preserved.

The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist for abstracts appears in Table 3 and has the same number of items as the original PRISMA checklist for abstracts because 1 item was deleted (item 8) and 1 item was added (item A1); therefore, the numbering from the original PRISMA for abstracts is preserved.

Discussion

Quiz Ref IDThe PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides guidance specific to systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Both the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist and the checklist for abstracts were developed with multidisciplinary consensus approaches as per best practices for guideline development.18 The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist items reflect the concepts, methods, and language specific to systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies and, if implemented, can help ensure that information for assessment of risk of bias and applicability and can enhance transparency and replicability of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. This work should be of practical use to those who author, review, publish, fund, and implement the results of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. It may also be useful as a guidance for protocols of systematic reviews on diagnostic test accuracy. This checklist is relevant to include for the evaluation of single tests, multiple tests (comparative), and multivariable diagnostic models.

Quiz Ref IDThe PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist aims to improve the completeness and transparency of reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Complete reporting might be associated with review quality, however, they are not inseparable.4 The understanding and the application of the optimal principles and methods for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies are complex and require knowledge acquired from resources beyond a 27-item reporting checklist.1 Even though guidance is available for conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies,27 considerable areas of uncertainty remain (eg, optimal methods for assessing variability, appropriate interpretation of review findings); these areas are likely to evolve based on ongoing and future research.8 As such, prospective reviewers are encouraged to seek specialized training (eg, Cochrane group author training resources for screening and diagnostic test methods) and to collaborate with those experienced in systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy studies.39

Quiz Ref IDConforming to reporting guidelines can be challenging based on journal-level constraints such as limits on words, tables, and figures; however, there is little evidence to indicate that reporting guidelines increase the word count of articles. Methods to ensure complete reporting may include the use of supplementary online material, institutional repositories, and appendices. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline represents minimum reporting requirements, rather than a constraint or cap on what should be reported. Additional information that authors consider relevant to their specific review question may also be reported (eg, interobserver agreement for imaging reviews).

Complete reporting of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews may be hindered by incomplete reporting in diagnostic test accuracy primary studies.40 This challenge makes complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more important because readers need to know whether the necessary information from the primary studies was available and whether conclusions can be drawn based on that information.

Limitations

Development of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy statement was guided by evidence-based principles when possible; however, when evidence was lacking, we relied on expert opinion. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist was designed for all types of diagnostic test accuracy research; some specialties (eg, imaging) may have important items unique to their specialty (eg, interobserver agreement) that were not included in the guideline but should be reported. In addition, as the body of evidence in diagnostic test accuracy research grows, the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline will need to be updated to reflect these advances.

Conclusions

The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Matthew D. F. McInnes, MD, Ottawa Hospital-Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON K1E 4Y9, Canada (mmcinnes@toh.ca).

Accepted for Publication: December 6, 2017.

The PRISMA-DTA Group Authors: Tammy Clifford, PhD; Jérémie F. Cohen, MD, PhD; Jonathan J. Deeks, PhD; Constantine Gatsonis, PhD; Lotty Hooft, PhD; Harriet A. Hunt, MSc; Christopher J. Hyde, PhD; Daniël A. Korevaar, MD, PhD; Mariska M. G. Leeflang, PhD; Petra Macaskill, PhD; Johannes B. Reitsma, MD, PhD; Rachel Rodin, MD, MPH; Anne W. S. Rutjes, PhD; Jean-Paul Salameh, BSc; Adrienne Stevens, MSc; Yemisi Takwoingi, PhD; Marcello Tonelli, MD, SM; Laura Weeks, PhD; Penny Whiting, PhD; Brian H. Willis, MD, PhD.

Affiliations of The PRISMA-DTA Group Authors: Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Salameh); Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Korevaar, Leeflang); Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ontario (Clifford, Weeks); Department of Pediatrics, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France (Cohen); Inserm UMR 1153, Research Center for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France (Cohen); University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (Deeks, Takwoingi, Willis); Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island (Gatsonis); Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (Hooft, Reitsma); University of Exeter, Exeter, England (Hunt, Hyde); University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (Macaskill); Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Rodin); Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Berner Institut für Hausarztmedizin, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (Rutjes); School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Salameh); Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Stevens); Translational Research in Biomedicine Program, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia (Stevens); University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (Tonelli); University of Bristol, National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, Bristol, England (Whiting).

Author Contributions: Dr McInnes had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: McInnes, Moher, McGrath, Bossuyt, Clifford, Cohen, Korevaar, Reitsma, Salameh, Takwoingi, Willis.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: McInnes, Thombs, McGrath, Cohen, Gatsonis, Hunt, Hyde, Korevaar, Leeflang, Reitsma, Rutjes, Salameh, Stevens, Takwoingi, Tonelli, Weeks, Whiting, Willis.

Drafting of the manuscript: McInnes, Moher, McGrath, Leeflang, Salameh, Willis.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: McInnes, Thombs, McGrath, Bossuyt, Clifford, Cohen, Deeks, Gatsonis, Hooft, Hunt, Hyde, Korevaar, Leeflang, Macaskill, Reitsma, Rodin, Rutjes, Salameh, Stevens, Takwoingi, Tonelli, Weeks, Whiting, Willis.

Obtained funding: McInnes, Clifford.

Administrative, technical, or material support: McInnes, Moher, Clifford, Hunt, Salameh, Willis.

Supervision: McInnes, Bossuyt, Takwoingi.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

Funding/Support: The research was supported by grant 375751 from the Canadian Institute for Health Research; funding from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; funding from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Group; funding from the University of Ottawa Department of Radiology Research Stipend Program; and funding from the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: None of the funding sources had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
McInnes  MD, Bossuyt  PM.  Pitfalls of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in imaging research.  Radiology. 2015;277(1):13-21.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
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(9):e1000326.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Glasziou  P, Altman  DG, Bossuyt  P,  et al.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.  Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-276.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
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(2):413-426.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
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(1):78-85.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Naaktgeboren  CA, van Enst  WA, Ochodo  EA,  et al.  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(11):1200-1209.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Ochodo  EA, van Enst  WA, Naaktgeboren  CA,  et al.  Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:33.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Naaktgeboren  CA, Ochodo  EA, Van Enst  WA,  et al.  Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):6.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
McGrath  TA, McInnes  MDF, Langer  FW, Hong  J, Korevaar  DA, Bossuyt  PMM.  Treatment of multiple test readers in diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews-meta-analyses of imaging studies.  Eur J Radiol. 2017;93:59-64.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG; PRISMA Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006-1012.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Liberati  A, Altman  DG, Tetzlaff  J,  et al.  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(10):e1-e34.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Macaskill  PGC, Deeks  JJ, Harbord  RM, Takwoingi  Y. Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks  JJ, Bossuyt  PM, Gatsonis  C, eds.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Oxford, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2010.
15.
Whiting  PF, Rutjes  AW, Westwood  ME,  et al; QUADAS-2 Group.  QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.  Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Bossuyt  PM, Reitsma  JB, Bruns  DE,  et al; STARD Group.  STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.  Radiology. 2015;277(3):826-832.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Equator Network. Reporting guidelines under development. http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#99. Accessed November 28, 2014.
18.
Moher  D, Schulz  KF, Simera  I, Altman  DG.  Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.  PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
McGrath  TA, Alabousi  M, Skidmore  B,  et al.  Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review.  Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):194.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Trevelyan  E, Robinson  N.  Delphi methodology in health research: how to do it?  Eur J Integr Med. 2015;7:423-428.Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Boulkedid  R, Abdoul  H, Loustau  M, Sibony  O, Alberti  C.  Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review.  PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Whiting  P, Savović  J, Higgins  JP,  et al; ROBIS Group.  ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-234.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Korevaar  DA, Cohen  JF, Reitsma  JB,  et al.  Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015 [published online June 7, 2016].  Res Integr Peer Rev. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0014-7Google Scholar
24.
Cohen  JF, Korevaar  DA, Gatsonis  CA,  et al; STARD Group.  STARD for abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts.  BMJ. 2017;358:j3751.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Korevaar  DA, Bossuyt  PM, Hooft  L.  Infrequent and incomplete registration of test accuracy studies: analysis of recent study reports.  BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e004596.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Korevaar  DA, Cohen  JF, Spijker  R,  et al.  Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:96-103.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Deeks  J, Bossuyt  P, Gatsonis  C.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. 1.0.0 ed. Oxford, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.
28.
van Enst  WA, Ochodo  E, Scholten  RJ, Hooft  L, Leeflang  MM.  Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:70.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Deeks  JJ, Macaskill  P, Irwig  L.  The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):882-893.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Cohen  JF, Korevaar  DA, Altman  DG,  et al.  STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.  BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
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;63(8):1353-1362.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Rutter  CM, Gatsonis  CA.  A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations.  Stat Med. 2001;20(19):2865-2884.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Reitsma  JB, Glas  AS, Rutjes  AW, Scholten  RJ, Bossuyt  PM, Zwinderman  AH.  Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(10):982-990.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Dinnes  J, Mallett  S, Hopewell  S, Roderick  PJ, Deeks  JJ.  The Moses-Littenberg meta-analytical method generates systematic differences in test accuracy compared to hierarchical meta-analytical models.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;80:77-87.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Irwig  L, Macaskill  P, Glasziou  P, Fahey  M.  Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):119-130.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Lijmer  JG, Mol  BW, Heisterkamp  S,  et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.  JAMA. 1999;282(11):1061-1066.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Zwinderman  AH, Glas  AS, Bossuyt  PM, Florie  J, Bipat  S, Stoker  J.  Statistical models for quantifying diagnostic accuracy with multiple lesions per patient.  Biostatistics. 2008;9(3):513-522.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Beller  EM, Glasziou  PP, Altman  DG,  et al; PRISMA for Abstracts Group.  PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts.  PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
de Vet  HCW, Eisinga  A, Riphagen  II, Aertgeerts  B, Pewsner  D. Searching for studies. In:  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 0.4. Oxford, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
40.
Hong  PJ, Korevaar  DA, McGrath  TA,  et al.  Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: adherence to STARD 2015 [published online June 22, 2017].  J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.1002/jmri.25797PubMedGoogle Scholar
×