Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) of Radiological Articles Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline

Abstract

This study evaluated the completeness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in radiology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts guidelines between articles published before and those published after the issuance of the guideline and identify areas that have been poorly reported. PubMed were searched for systematic reviews on DTA with or without meta-analyses published in general radiology journals between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. The identified articles were assessed for completeness of reporting according to the PRISMA-DTA. Subgroup analyses were performed for association of completeness of reporting with multiple cofactors. The search identified 183 reviews from 12 journals. The mean numbers (standard deviation) of reported PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts items in the full texts and abstracts were 18.45 (2.02) and 5.66 (1.28), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that compared to the corresponding reference groups, a higher mean number of reported PRISMA-DTA items was associated with publication during July 2018-December 2020 [(17.82 (2.01) vs 18.89 (1.91); p=0.034), citation of the PRISMA-DTA [17.62 (1.86) vs 20.27 (2.02); p < 0.001], and inclusion of supplementary materials [17.64 (2) vs 19.09 (1.8); p < 0.001] on multiple-linear regression analysis. Completeness of reporting with respect to the PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts has improved modestly since the publication of the PRISMA-DTA guideline; however, increasing awareness of the specific weakness provides the chance for completeness improvement.