Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are fundamental to the decision-making process in evidence-based medicine. Although such studies are regarded as high-level evidence, these reviews are not always reported completely and transparently. Sub-optimal reporting of DTA systematic reviews compromises their validity, generalizability, and value to key stakeholders. This thesis evaluates the completeness of reporting of published DTA systematic reviews based on the PRISMA-DTA checklist and provides an explanation for the new and modified items (relative to PRISMA), along with their meaning and rationale. Our results demonstrate that recently published reports of DTA systematic reviews are not fully informative, when evaluated against the PRISMA-DTA guidelines: mean reported items=18.6/26(71%, SD=1.9) for PRISMA-DTA; 5.5/11(50%, SD=1.2) for PRISMA-DTA for abstracts. The PRISMA-DTA statement, this document, and the associated website (http://www. prisma-statement.org/Extensions/DTA) are meant to be helpful resources to support the transparent reporting of DTA systematic reviews and guide knowledge translation strategies.