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

Jérémie F. Cohen, Jon Deeks, Lotty Hooft, Jean-Paul Salameh, Daniël A. Korevaar, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Sally Hopewell, Harriet A Hunt, Christopher Hyde, Mariska M G Leeflang, Petra Macaskill, Trevor A McGrath, D Moher, Johannes B. Reitsma, Anne W S Rutjes, Yemisi Takwoingi, Marcello Tonelli, Penny Whiting, Brian H Willis, Brett D ThombsPatrick M. Bossuyt, Matthew DF McInnes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

82 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

For many users of the biomedical literature, abstracts may be the only source of information about a study. Hence, abstracts should allow readers to evaluate study objectives, key design features, and main results. Several evaluations have revealed deficiencies in the reporting of journal and conference abstracts across study designs and research fields, including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Incomplete reporting compromises the value of research to key stakeholders. The authors developed a 12-item checklist of preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts). This article presents the checklist, examples of complete reporting, and explanations for each item of PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts.

KEY MESSAGES -The PRISMA-DTA statement has become an internationally accepted reporting guideline for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies
-PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts is intended to improve the completeness and informativeness of journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies
-PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts includes 12 essential items to report in journal and conference abstracts
-Here we provide the checklist, examples of complete reporting and explanations for each item of the checklist, and abstracts of two reviews that authors can use as examples for their abstracts.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbern265
JournalBMJ
Volume372
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding: No specific funding was received to develop this explanation and elaboration document. JJD is a UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) senior investigator emeritus. YT is funded by a UK NIHR postdoctoral fellowship. JJD and YT are supported by the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre. MDFM is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research (grant number 375751), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Group (STARD). BT is a Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé distinguished scholar and a Tier 1 Canada research chair. BHW is funded by a UK MRC clinician scientist fellowship (MR/N007999/1). DM is supported by a university research chair (uOttawa). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR, or Department of Health and Social Care.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this