The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

No abstract

PRISMA-DTA item 1: title Identify the report as a systematic review (with or without meta-analysis) of DTA studies. Examples 1. Diagnostic accuracy of saline contrast sonohysterography in detecting endometrial For numbered affiliations see end of the article.

COMMENT © 2 0 1 7 M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h e r s L i m i t e d , p a r t o f S p r i n g e r N a t u r e . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d .

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

BackgroundThis study is to perform a systematic review of existing guidance on quality of reporting and methodology for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) in order to compile a list of potential items that might be included in a reporting guideline for such reviews: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).MethodsStudy protocol published on EQUATOR website. Articles in full text or abstract form that reported on any aspect of reporting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy were eligible for inclusion. We used the Ovid platform to search Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Embase Classic+Embase through May 5, 2016. The Cochrane Methodology Register in the Cochrane Library (Wiley version) was also searched. Title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening of all search results was performed independently by two investigators. Guideline organization websites, published guidance statements, and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy were also searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) were assessed independently by two investigators for relevant items.ResultsThe literature searched yielded 6967 results; 386 were included after title and abstract screening and 203 after full-text screening. After reviewing the existing literature and guidance documents, a preliminary list of 64 items was compiled into the following categories: title (three items); introduction (two items); methods (35 items); results (13 items); discussion (nine items), and disclosure (two items).ConclusionItems on the methods and reporting of DTA systematic reviews in the present systematic review will provide a basis for generating a PRISMA extension for DTA systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND We wished to assess the frequency of overinterpretation in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS MEDLINE was searched through PubMed from December 2015 to January 2016. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in English were included if they reported one or more metaanalyses of accuracy estimates. We built and piloted a list of 10 items that represent actual overinterpretation in the abstract and/or full-text conclusion, and a list of 9 items that represent potential overinterpretation. Two investigators independently used the items to score each included systematic review, with disagreements resolved by consensus. RESULTS We included 112 systematic reviews. The majority had a positive conclusion regarding the accuracy or clinical usefulness of the investigated test in the abstract (n = 83; 74%) and full-text (n = 83; 74%). Of the 112 reviews, 81 (72%) contained at least 1 actual form of overinterpretation in the abstract, and 77 (69%) in the full-text. This was most often a “positive conclusion, not reflecting the reported summary accuracy estimates,” in 55 (49%) abstracts and 56 (50%) full-texts and a “positive conclusion, not taking high risk of bias and/or applicability concerns into account,” in 47 abstracts (42%) and 26 full-texts (23%). Of these 112 reviews, 107 (96%) contained a form of potential overinterpretation, most frequently “nonrecommended statistical methods for metaanalysis performed” (n = 57; 51%). CONCLUSIONS Most recent systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies present positive conclusions and a majority contain a form of overinterpretation. This may lead to unjustified optimism about test performance and erroneous clinical decisions and recommendations.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for local staging of bladder cancer for four clinical scenarios (T-stage thresholds) considered against current standards for clinical staging and secondarily to identify sources for variability in accuracy. Systematic review of patients with bladder cancer undergoing T-staging MRI to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Sub-group analysis was done to explore variability; risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. The search identified 30 studies (5156 patients). Pooled accuracy at multiple T-stage thresholds: ≤T1 vs ≥T2 = sensitivity 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82-91), specificity 79% (95% CI 72-85); T-any vs T0 = sensitivity 65% (95% CI 23-92), specificity 90% (95% CI 83-94); ≤T2 vs ≥T3 = sensitivity 83% (95% CI 75-88), specificity 87% (95% CI 78-93); and