Skip to main content

Table 1 Potential relevant items for PRISMA-DTA checklist. Items deemed by the authors to apply specifically to DTA reviews are in Bold

From: Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review

  Item Ref
1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis or both [12]
2 Identify the report as a study of diagnostic accuracy using at least one measure of accuracy [28]
3 State whether the report is a comparative (one diagnostic test vs. another) or a non-comparative review [37, 38]
4 State the scientific and clinical background, including the intended use and clinical role of the index test (e.g., triage test, add-on test, or replacement test [39]
5 List review objective using PICO format (participant characteristics, intervention, comparison, outcome) [12]
  Methods: protocol eligibility, and search  
6 Indicate if a review protocol exists, where it can be accessed and, if available, registration number [12]
7 Report deviations from the original protocol [31]
8 Report which outcomes are considered primary and secondary [31]
9 Describe all information sources and the date of search [12]
10 Report restrictions to search strategy (language, publication status, dates) [31]
11 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated [12]
12 Report whether hand searching of reference lists was done [31]
13 Describe methods to ensure that overlapping patient populations were identified and accounted for [31]
14 List any search of the gray literature including search of study registries [31]
15 Specify criteria for eligibility [12]
  Methods: study selection and data collection  
16 Report the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, full-text eligibility) [12]
17 Provide an appendix with studies excluded, with reasons for exclusion, during full-text screening [12]
18 Describe method of data extraction from reports [12]
19 Report which data items were extracted from included studies [12]
20 Report how studies for which only a subgroup of participants is relevant to the review will be handled [31]
21 Report how “indeterminate” or “missing” results for either the index test or reference standard were dealt with in the analysis [40]
22 Report if and how any parameters beyond test accuracy will be evaluated (e.g., cost-effectiveness, mortality) [46]
  Methods: primary study data items  
23 (a) Patient demographic information (age, gender) [2, 12, 28]
  (b) Target condition definition  
  (c) Index test  
  (d) Reference standard  
  (e) Positivity thresholds  
  (f) Blinding information  
  (g) Clinical setting  
  (h) Disease prevalence  
  (i) Cross-tabulation of index test with reference standard (2 × 2 table)  
  (j) Funding sources  
  Methods: risk of bias and heterogeneity  
24 Report how included individual studies will be assessed for methodological quality (e.g., QUADAS-2) [14]
25 Describe if and how “piloting” the risk of bias tool was done [14]
26 List criteria used for risk of bias ratings applied during the review [31]
27 Describe methods for study quality assessment [12]
28 Provide measures of consistency (e.g., tau2) for each meta-analysis [12]
29 Describe test used to assess for publication bias [12]
  Methods: summary measures and statistics  
30 State the principal summary measures of diagnostic accuracy to be assessed [28]
31 Report whether summary measures were calculated on a per-patient or per-lesion basis [31]
32 Report pre-defined criteria for minimally acceptable test performance [42]
33 State how multiple readers of an index test were accounted for [17]
34 Report the statistical method used for meta-analysis (e.g., hierarchical model) [2]
35 State which software package and macros was used for meta-analysis [6]
36 Report any programming deviations made from published software packages [6]
37 If comparative design, state the statistical methods used to compare test accuracy [28]
38 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., subgroup), indicating whether pre-specified [12]
39 Report how subgroup analyses were performed [31]
40 When performing meta-regression report the form of factors being explored (categorical vs. continuous) and the cut-off points used [41]
41 Report studies from screen to inclusion, ideally with a flow diagram [12]
42 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted and provide the citations [12]
43 Present data on risk of bias of each study on a per-item or per-domain basis [12, 14, 35]
44 Present results of any assessment of publication bias [12]
45 Report any adverse events or harms from index test or reference standard [31]
46 For each study report 2 × 2 data (TP, FN, FP, TN) [43, 45]
47 For each study report summary estimates of accuracy and confidence intervals [28]
48 Report each meta-analysis including confidence intervals and measures of consistency (e.g., tau2) [12]
49 Graphically display results with an ROC curve or forest plots of sensitivity and specificity [44]
50 Report additional analyses (e.g., meta-regression) [12]
51 Report risk of bias in the synthesis (e.g., analyses stratified by risk of bias) [31]
52 Report summary of findings table with main outcomes and issues re: applicability of results [31]
53 Report “frequency” tables of 2 × 2 data demonstrating potential findings in a patient population based on the prevalence [45]
54 Summarize findings including implications for practice [12, 28]
55 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research [12]
56 For comparative design, report whether conclusions were based on direct vs. indirect comparisons [37]
57 Discuss the implications of any missing data [31]
58 Discuss applicability concerns to different populations/settings [14, 45]
59 Discuss quality of included studies when forming conclusions [36]
60 Account for any statistical heterogeneity when interpreting the results [31]
61 Discuss the potential impact of reporting biases [31]
62 Discuss the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) [31]
63 Describe sources of funding for the review and role of funders [12]
64 Report potential relevant conflicts of interest for review investigators [36]
  1. “Ref” = source reference(s) for the item