tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Medwave
. 2026 May 15;26(4):e3219.
doi: 10.5867/medwave.2026.04.3219.
Quality of reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 according to PRISMA-DTA: A meta-epidemiological survey
Nicolás Meza[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Francisca J Lizana[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mónica Velásquez[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Javier Hormazábal[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bruno Morgado[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Pablo I Osses-González[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Claudia E Silva[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Silvana V Villalobos[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Vivienne C Bachelet[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
in English, Spanish
Introduction: Systematic reviews are crucial for informing health decisions and supporting evidence-based policymaking. Reporting guidelines aim to reduce ambiguity and confusion while promoting clarity, completeness, and transparency in reporting. Our study aimed to assess the completeness of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews with meta-analysis on rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic using the PRISMA-DTA guideline.
Methods: We conducted a meta-epidemiological survey of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, L·OVE Covid-19, and Web of Science Clarivate, covering the period from inception to April 3, 2025, with no language restrictions. We included reviews that used explicit systematic review methodologies with summary estimates of test sensitivity and specificity. We assessed compliance with the 27 PRISMA-DTA items.
Results: After screening 5252 publications, we included 38 reviews. We found no PRISMA-DTA item with a low reporting frequency. Regarding the number of items reported, 23 (60%) of the included studies reported over 66%, and 15 (40%) reported between 33% and 66%, with none reporting fewer than 33%. None of the included reviews complied with the full PRISMA-DTA checklist.
Conclusions: Our meta-epidemiological survey reveals persistent shortcomings in the reporting quality of systematic reviews evaluating rapid antigen test accuracy for SARS-CoV-2. While some items were consistently addressed, numerous critical domains requiring a deeper understanding of the specific diagnostic test accuracy assessment methods showed low reporting adherence.
Keywords: COVID-19; PRISMA-DTA; SARS-CoV-2; quality of reporting; rapid antigen tests; reporting guidelines.
. 2026 May 15;26(4):e3219.
doi: 10.5867/medwave.2026.04.3219.
Quality of reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 according to PRISMA-DTA: A meta-epidemiological survey
Nicolás Meza[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Francisca J Lizana[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mónica Velásquez[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Javier Hormazábal[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bruno Morgado[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Pablo I Osses-González[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Claudia E Silva[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Silvana V Villalobos[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Vivienne C Bachelet[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 42139648
- DOI: 10.5867/medwave.2026.04.3219
in English, Spanish
Introduction: Systematic reviews are crucial for informing health decisions and supporting evidence-based policymaking. Reporting guidelines aim to reduce ambiguity and confusion while promoting clarity, completeness, and transparency in reporting. Our study aimed to assess the completeness of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews with meta-analysis on rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic using the PRISMA-DTA guideline.
Methods: We conducted a meta-epidemiological survey of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, L·OVE Covid-19, and Web of Science Clarivate, covering the period from inception to April 3, 2025, with no language restrictions. We included reviews that used explicit systematic review methodologies with summary estimates of test sensitivity and specificity. We assessed compliance with the 27 PRISMA-DTA items.
Results: After screening 5252 publications, we included 38 reviews. We found no PRISMA-DTA item with a low reporting frequency. Regarding the number of items reported, 23 (60%) of the included studies reported over 66%, and 15 (40%) reported between 33% and 66%, with none reporting fewer than 33%. None of the included reviews complied with the full PRISMA-DTA checklist.
Conclusions: Our meta-epidemiological survey reveals persistent shortcomings in the reporting quality of systematic reviews evaluating rapid antigen test accuracy for SARS-CoV-2. While some items were consistently addressed, numerous critical domains requiring a deeper understanding of the specific diagnostic test accuracy assessment methods showed low reporting adherence.
Keywords: COVID-19; PRISMA-DTA; SARS-CoV-2; quality of reporting; rapid antigen tests; reporting guidelines.