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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 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 the objectives, key design features, and main results of the study. Several evaluations have shown 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 of this article have 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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbern265
Pages (from-to)n265
JournalBMJ (Clinical research ed.)
Volume372
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Mar 2021

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