Pagkalidou Eirini, Anastasilakis Dimitrios A, Kokkali Stamatia, Doundoulakis Ioannis, Tsapas Apostolos, Dardavessis Theodore, Haidich Anna-Bettina
Department of Hygiene, Social-Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece.
School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Hellenic J Cardiol. 2022 Feb 15;65:25-34. doi: 10.1016/j.hjc.2022.02.001. Print 2022 May/June.
Journal abstracts are crucial for the identification and initial assessment of content of studies. We evaluated whether authors in the field of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) reported Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews (DTA SRs) abstracts adequately, as defined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-DTA guidelines.
SRs of DTA studies in CVDs published in general and specialized medical journals were identified in a MEDLINE search between 2010-2020. Adherence to 12 PRISMA-DTA for abstracts items was assessed independently by two reviewers and compared by journal's type. Moreover, the association of reporting completeness with different characteristics was investigated.
We included 72 abstracts. Studies published in general medical journals had higher mean reporting score than those in specialized journals (6.2 vs 5.3 out of 12 items; mean difference: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 1.55). PRISMA-DTA adherence was higher in journals that adopted this guideline and in articles with structured abstracts. However, number of participants analysed, funding and registration were the least-reported items in the identified abstracts.
The reporting of abstracts of DTA reports in CVDs is suboptimal according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Abstract reporting could be improved with the use of higher word count limits and the adoption of PRISMA-DTA guidelines especially in specialized journals.
期刊摘要对于研究内容的识别和初步评估至关重要。我们评估了心血管疾病（CVD）领域的作者是否按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）-诊断试验准确性系统评价（DTA）指南的定义，充分报告了DTA系统评价的摘要。
通过MEDLINE检索2010年至2020年间发表在综合医学期刊和专业医学期刊上的CVD领域DTA研究的系统评价。由两名审稿人独立评估摘要对12项PRISMA-DTA项目的依从性，并按期刊类型进行比较。此外，还研究了报告完整性与不同特征之间的关联。
我们纳入了72篇摘要。发表在综合医学期刊上的研究的平均报告得分高于专业期刊上的研究（12项中分别为6.2分和5.3分；平均差异：0.88；95%置信区间：[0.21, 1.55]）。采用该指南的期刊以及具有结构化摘要的文章对PRISMA-DTA的依从性更高。然而，在纳入的摘要中，分析的参与者数量、资金和注册情况是报告最少的项目。
根据PRISMA-DTA指南，CVD领域DTA报告的摘要报告情况并不理想。通过使用更高的字数限制以及采用PRISMA-DTA指南，尤其是在专业期刊中，摘要报告情况可能会得到改善。
