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.

Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative brainstem auditory evoked potential for predicting hearing loss after vestibular schwannoma surgery

Objective

This meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic value of intraoperative brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) for predicting post-operative hearing loss.

Methods

Research articles in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched and selected up to 20 January 2022, and data were extracted following a standard procedure. A diagnostic accuracy test meta-analysis was performed using a mixed-effect binary regression model.

Results

A total of 693 patients from 15 studies were extracted. The change in intraoperative BAEP showed high sensitivity (0.95) but low specificity (0.37), with an area under the curve of 0.83. Diagnostic accuracy of the loss of potentials showed high sensitivity (0.82) and specificity (0.79). The area under the curve was 0.88. No factor was found to account for the heterogeneity of the results according to the meta-regression and subgroup analyses (all P-values > 0.05).

Conclusions

Our results showed that the loss of BAEP has meaningful value for predicting hearing loss after vestibular schwannoma surgery. The change in BAEP is also important for its high sensitivity during hearing preservation surgery.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Diagnostic Tests for Border Screening During the Very Early Phase of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during border screening among returning residents and prioritized travelers during the early phase of a pandemic can reduce the risk of importation and transmission in the community. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of various SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and assess their potential utility as border screening for infection and immunity. Systematic literature searches were conducted in six electronic databases for studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics (up to April 30, 2020). Meta-analysis and methodological assessment were conducted for all included studies. The performance of the diagnostic tests was evaluated with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and their respective 95% confidence intervals. A total of 5,416 unique studies were identified and 95 studies (at least 29,785 patients/samples) were included. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) consistently outperformed all other diagnostic methods regardless of the selected viral genes with a pooled sensitivity of 98% and a pooled specificity of 99%. Point-of-care (POC) serology tests had moderately high pooled sensitivity (69%), albeit lower than laboratory-based serology tests (89%), but both had high pooled specificity (96-98%). Serology tests were more sensitive for sampling collected at ≥ 7 days than ≤ 7 days from the disease symptoms onset. POC NAAT and POC serology tests are suitable for detecting infection and immunity against the virus, respectively as border screening. Independent validation in each country is highly encouraged with the preferred choice of diagnostic tool/s.