Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration

Cohen, Jérémie F.; Deeks, Jonathan J; Hooft, Lotty; Salameh, Jean‐Paul; Korevaar, Daniël A.; Gatsonis, Constantine; Hopewell, Sally; Hunt, Harriet; Hyde, Chris; Leeflang, Mariska; Macaskill, Petra; McGrath, Trevor A.; Moher, David; Reitsma, Johannes B.; Rutjes, Anne W S; Takwoingi, Yemisi; Whiting, Penny; Willis, Brian H; Thombs, Brett D.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.; McInnes, Matthew D. F.

doi:10.1136/bmj.n265

Cited by 46 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (ID: CRD42021236313) [12]. The reporting of this systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses of DTA studies (PRISMA-DTA) guideline [13] and two relevant extensions “PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts” [14] and “PRISMA-S for Reporting Literatures Searches in Systematic Reviews” [15]. The completed PRISMA checklists are available in Appendix 1 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Fujita-Rohwerder

Beckmann

Zens

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children under real-life conditions. Study design: Multiple bibliographic databases including MEDLINE and Embase, clinical trial registries and further information sources were systematically searched for literature (last bibliographic search: May 7, 2021). Diagnostic cross-sectional or cohort studies that included paediatric study participants and evaluated rapid point-of care tests for diagnosing current SARS-CoV-2 infections against RT-PCR as the reference standard were eligible for inclusion. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies. Bivariate meta-analyses with random effects were performed. Variability was assessed by subgroup analyses. Results: We included 17 studies with a total of 6355 paediatric study participants. All included studies compared antigen tests against RT-PCR. Only one study was at low risk of bias. The pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in paediatric populations was 64.2% (95% CI: 57.4%-70.5%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 98.2%-99.5%), respectively. In symptomatic children, the pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 71.8% (95% CI: 63.6%-78.8%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.7% (95% CI: 96.6%-99.5%). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in asymptomatic children was 56.2% (95% CI: 47.6%-64.4%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.6% (95% CI: 97.3%-99.3%). Conclusions: Performance of current antigen tests under real-life conditions varies broadly. Policymakers should especially be aware of the low diagnostic sensitivity of current antigen tests. Results should be interpreted with caution since risk of bias was predominantly judged as unclear due to poor reporting. Study Registration: CRD42021236313 (PROSPERO).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Fujita-Rohwerder

Beckmann

Zens

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systematic and scoping reviews are research methodologies which use repeatable analytical methods to search for, gather, and summarize literature on a given topic in order to ll a knowledge gap [40][41][42][43][44][45]. Standardized academic search strategies are of great bene t to researchers seeking to conduct these types of studies, as this yields more consistent search results; this in turn, can maximize the opportunity of capturing as much of the relevant available peerreviewed literature as possible, identify gaps in research, and inform potential future directions [46][47][48][49][50].…”

Section: Systematic and Scoping Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operational Definition of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Derived from a Systematic Search

Ng¹,

Dhawan²,

Dogadova³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Identifying what therapies constitute complementary, alternative, and/or integrative medicine (CAIM) is complex for a multitude of reasons. An operational definition is dynamic, and changes based on both historical time period and geographical location whereby many jurisdictions may integrate or consider their traditional system(s) of medicine as conventional care. To date, only one operational definition of “complementary and alternative medicine” has been proposed, by Cochrane researchers in 2011. This definition is not only several years old but also did not use systematic methods to compile the therapies. Furthermore, it did not capture the concept “integrative medicine”, which is an increasingly popular aspect of the use of complementary therapies in practice. An updated operational definition reflective of CAIM is warranted given the rapidly increasing body of CAIM research literature published each year. Methods Four peer-reviewed or otherwise quality-assessed information resource types were used to inform the development of the operational definition: peer-reviewed articles resulting from searches across seven academic databases; the “aims and scope” webpages of peer-reviewed CAIM journals; CAIM entries found in online encyclopedias, and highly-ranked websites identified through searches of CAIM-related terms on HONcode. Screening of eligible resources, and data extraction of CAIM therapies across them, were each conducted independently and in duplicate. CAIM therapies across eligible sources were deduplicated. Results A total of 101 eligible resources were identified: peer-reviewed articles (n = 19), journal “aims and scope” webpages (n = 22), encyclopedia entries (n = 11), HONcode-searched websites (n = 49). Six hundred four unique CAIM terms were included in this operational definition of CAIM. Conclusions This updated operational definition is the first to be informed by systematic methods, and could support the harmonization of CAIM-related research through the provision of a standard of classification, as well as support improved collaboration between different research groups.

show abstract

“…Eventually, one item (item 8, calling for the description of effect size) was removed as it does not apply to test accuracy studies, one item (item A1, calling for reporting of statistical methods used for data synthesis) was added, and updated phrasing was used in six additional items, reflecting language and methods more typically used in test accuracy research. The PRISMA-DTA group has now published an extensive Explanation and Elaboration document, with detailed guidance along with examples on how to report each item in an abstract [13].…”

Section: Prisma-dta and Prisma-dta For Abstractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts list is also available in the EQUATOR network's library (https://www.equator-network.org/) Full-text articles STARD 2015 [7,8] PRISMA-DTA [11,12] Journal and conference abstracts STARD for Abstracts [26] PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts [11,13] Prospective registration STARD for Registration [33] Not yet available diagnostic tests and strategies may need to grade the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, for example by using GRADE [37].…”

Section: Registration 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recent publication of PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provides a new addition to the toolbox for reporting test accuracy research [11][12][13]. We here set out which steps led to the development of PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts and which tools are currently available to improve and assess the reporting and the methodological quality of test accuracy research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts: a new addition to the toolbox for test accuracy research

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration

Cited by 46 publications

References 63 publications

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Operational Definition of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Derived from a Systematic Search

PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts: a new addition to the toolbox for test accuracy research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About