Reducing Waste and Increasing the Usability of Psychiatry Research: The Family of EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines and One of Its Newest Members: The PRISMA-DTA Statement

Measuring quality of reporting in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in medical imaging: comparison of PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA

OBJECTIVES

To compare the reporting quality measured by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA) vs the original PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in imaging and survey the use of PRISMA-DTA by researchers and endorsement by journals.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of DTA studies published in 2020 and 2021 in Quartile 1 and Quartile 3 medical imaging journals (defined by Journal Citation Reports) were identified through PubMed. The reporting of each systematic review was assessed using PRISMA-DTA, PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-2020. The item scores and overall score were compared among the three checklists. We also examined checklist adoption by the included systematic reviews and surveyed checklist endorsement from author instructions of included journals.

RESULTS

A total of 173 systematic reviews from 66 journals were included. The use of PRISMA-DTA, compared with PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-2020, identified more issues in the reporting of title (proportion of systematic reviews with proper reporting, 27.2% vs 98.8% vs 98.8%), abstract (39.3% vs 97.1% vs 64.7%), eligibility criteria (67.6% vs 94.2% vs 94.2%), search (28.9% vs 72.3% vs 28.9%), definitions for data extraction (14.5% vs 91.9% vs 91.9%), diagnostic accuracy measures (38.2% vs 93.6% vs 93.6%), synthesis of results (28.9% vs 89.6% vs 73.4%) and results of individual studies (40.5% vs 80.3% vs 80.3%). The overall median reporting score measured by PRISMA-DTA (72.0% (interquartile range (IQR), 66.7-77.8%)) was lower than that measured by PRISMA-2009 (88.9% (IQR, 84.0-92.6%)) and similar to that measured by PRISMA-2020 (74.1% (IQR, 66.7-77.8%)). Additionally, PRISMA-DTA was used by only 43 (24.9%) systematic reviews and endorsed by two (3.0%) journals. These trends remained consistent for reviews published in journals with diverse scientific impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PRISMA-DTA may identify more reporting inadequacies compared with the original PRISMA checklists when assessing diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews, especially in critical sections such as title, abstract and methods. However, this tool is not commonly used by researchers and is inadequately endorsed by imaging journals. Our findings suggest a strong need to use PRISMA-DTA for reporting of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews by authors and its endorsement by journals. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies

BACKGROUND

Factors contributing to the lack of understanding of research studies include poor reporting practices, such as selective reporting of statistically significant findings or insufficient methodological details. Systematic reviews have shown that prognostic factor studies continue to be poorly reported, even for important aspects, such as the effective sample size. The REMARK reporting guidelines support researchers in reporting key aspects of tumor marker prognostic studies. The REMARK profile was proposed to augment these guidelines to aid in structured reporting with an emphasis on including all aspects of analyses conducted.

METHODS

A systematic search of prognostic factor studies was conducted, and fifteen studies published in 2015 were selected, three from each of five oncology journals. A paper was eligible for selection if it included survival outcomes and multivariable models were used in the statistical analyses. For each study, we summarized the key information in a REMARK profile consisting of details about the patient population with available variables and follow-up data, and a list of all analyses conducted.

RESULTS

Structured profiles allow an easy assessment if reporting of a study only has weaknesses or if it is poor because many relevant details are missing. Studies had incomplete reporting of exclusion of patients, missing information about the number of events, or lacked details about statistical analyses, e.g., subgroup analyses in small populations without any information about the number of events. Profiles exhibit severe weaknesses in the reporting of more than 50% of the studies. The quality of analyses was not assessed, but some profiles exhibit several deficits at a glance.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial part of prognostic factor studies is poorly reported and analyzed, with severe consequences for related systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We consider inadequate reporting of single studies as one of the most important reasons that the clinical relevance of most markers is still unclear after years of research and dozens of publications. We conclude that structured reporting is an important step to improve the quality of prognostic marker research and discuss its role in the context of selective reporting, meta-analysis, study registration, predefined statistical analysis plans, and improvement of marker research.