Objective To evaluate the completeness of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in a general radiology journal using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Materials and Methods Twenty-four articles (systematic review and meta-analysis, n = 18; systematic review only, n = 6) published between August 2009 and September 2021 in the Korean Journal of Radiology were analyzed. Completeness of the reporting of main texts and abstracts were evaluated using the PRISMA 2020 statement. For each item in the statement, the proportion of studies that met the guidelines’ recommendation was calculated and items that were satisfied by fewer than 80% of the studies were identified. The review process was conducted by two independent reviewers. Results Of the 42 items (including sub-items) in the PRISMA 2020 statement for main text, 24 were satisfied by fewer than 80% of the included articles. The 24 items were grouped into eight domains: 1) assessment of the eligibility of potential articles, 2) assessment of the risk of bias, 3) synthesis of results, 4) additional analysis of study heterogeneity, 5) assessment of non-reporting bias, 6) assessment of the certainty of evidence, 7) provision of limitations of the study, and 8) additional information, such as protocol registration. Of the 12 items in the abstract checklists, eight were incorporated in fewer than 80% of the included publications. Conclusion Several items included in the PRISMA 2020 checklist were overlooked in systematic review and meta-analysis articles published in the Korean Journal of Radiology . Based on these results, we suggest a double-check list for improving the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors and reviewers should familiarize themselves with the PRISMA 2020 statement and check whether the recommended items are fully satisfied prior to publication.

Background: Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) including diffusion-weighted image (DWI) have been widely used in patients with multiple myeloma. However, evidence for the value of WB-MRI in the evaluation of treatment response remains sparse. Therefore, we evaluated the role of WB-MRI in the response assessment.Methods: In our WB-MRI registry, we searched multiple myeloma patients treated with chemotherapy who underwent both baseline and follow-up WB-MRI scans. Clinical responses were categorized as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD), using IMWG criteria. Using RECIST 1.1, MD Anderson (MDA) criteria, and MDA-DWI criteria, imaging responses on WB-MRI were rated as CR, PR, SD, or PD by two radiologists independently. Then, discrepancy cases were resolved by consensus. Weighted Kappa analysis was performed to evaluate agreement between the imaging and clinical responses. The diagnostic accuracy of image responses in the evaluation of clinical CR, objective response (CR and PR), and PD was calculated. Results: Forty-two eligible patients were included. There was moderate agreement between imaging and clinical responses (κ = 0.54 for RECIST 1.1, κ = 0.58 for MDA criteria, κ = 0.69 for MDA-DWI criteria). WB-MRI showed excellent diagnostic accuracy in assessment of clinical PD (sensitivity 88.9%, specificity 94.7%, positive predictive value [PPV] 84.2%, negative predictive value [NPV] 96.4% in all three imaging criteria). By contrast, WB-MRI showed low accuracy in assessment of clinical CR (sensitivity 4.5%, specificity 98.1%, PPV 50.0%, NPV 71.2% in all three imaging criteria). As to the clinical objective response, the diagnostic accuracy was higher in MDA-DWI criteria than RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria (sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV, 84.2%/94.4%/98.0%/65.4, 54.4%/100%/100%/40.9, and 61.4%/94.4%/97.2%/43.6%, respectively). Conclusions:In the imaging response assessment of multiple myeloma, WB-MRI showed excellent performance in the evaluation of PD, but not in the assessment of CR or objective response. When adding DWI to imaging response criteria, diagnostic accuracy for objective response was improved and agreement between imaging and clinical responses was increased.