Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

Author:

Bossuyt Patrick M.1,Reitsma Johannes B.2,Bruns David E.3,Gatsonis Constantine A.4,Glasziou Paul P.5,Irwig Les M.6,Lijmer Jeroen G.2,Moher David7,Rennie Drummond8,de Vet Henrica C.W.9

Affiliation:

1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3. Clinical Chemistry, Charlottesville USA

4. Centre for Statistical Sciences Brown University, USA

5. Department of Social & Preventive Medicine, Mayne Medical School, Australia

6. Screening and Evaluation Program School of Public Health University of Sydney, Australia

7. Chalmers Research Group, Ottowa Ontario, Canada

8. Journal of the American Medical Association, Chicago, USA

9. Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Free University, Amsterdam The Netherlands

Abstract

Background: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. Methods: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. Results: The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both. Conclusions: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Clinical Biochemistry,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3