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.

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 / Cohen, Jérémie F; Deeks, Jonathan J; Hooft, Lotty; Salameh, Jean-Paul; Korevaar, Daniël A; Gatsonis, Constantine; Hopewell, Sally; Hunt, Harriet A; Hyde, Chris J; Leeflang, Mariska M; Macaskill, Petra; Mcgrath, Trevor A; Moher, David; Reitsma, Johannes B; Rutjes, Anne Wilhelmina Saskia; Takwoingi, Yemisi; Tonelli, Marcello; Whiting, Penny; Willis, Brian H; Thombs, Brett; Bossuyt, Patrick M; Mcinnes, Matthew D F. - In: BMJ. - ISSN 1756-1833. - 372:n265(2021), pp. 1-9. [10.1136/bmj.n265]

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

Rutjes, Anne Wilhelmina Saskia
Writing – Review & Editing
;
Takwoingi, Yemisi;
2021

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.
2021
BMJ
372
n265
1
9
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 / Cohen, Jérémie F; Deeks, Jonathan J; Hooft, Lotty; Salameh, Jean-Paul; Korevaar, Daniël A; Gatsonis, Constantine; Hopewell, Sally; Hunt, Harriet A; Hyde, Chris J; Leeflang, Mariska M; Macaskill, Petra; Mcgrath, Trevor A; Moher, David; Reitsma, Johannes B; Rutjes, Anne Wilhelmina Saskia; Takwoingi, Yemisi; Tonelli, Marcello; Whiting, Penny; Willis, Brian H; Thombs, Brett; Bossuyt, Patrick M; Mcinnes, Matthew D F. - In: BMJ. - ISSN 1756-1833. - 372:n265(2021), pp. 1-9. [10.1136/bmj.n265]
Cohen, Jérémie F; Deeks, Jonathan J; Hooft, Lotty; Salameh, Jean-Paul; Korevaar, Daniël A; Gatsonis, Constantine; Hopewell, Sally; Hunt, Harriet A; Hyde, Chris J; Leeflang, Mariska M; Macaskill, Petra; Mcgrath, Trevor A; Moher, David; Reitsma, Johannes B; Rutjes, Anne Wilhelmina Saskia; Takwoingi, Yemisi; Tonelli, Marcello; Whiting, Penny; Willis, Brian H; Thombs, Brett; Bossuyt, Patrick M; Mcinnes, Matthew D F
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
bmj.n265.full.pdf

Open access

Tipologia: Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione 219.45 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
219.45 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1292477
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 11
  • Scopus 32
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact