Quality reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastrointestinal journals: where do we stand on the use of the STARD and CONSORT statements?

Miguel Areia · Matilde Monteiro‐Soares · Mário Jorge Dinis-Ribeiro

27 citations0/0 files storedEndoscopy

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Many papers have been published in the field of diagnostic endoscopy in the last few years. However, there are no reports on their quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate quality in recently published endoscopic articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study reviewed published articles on diagnostic endoscopy from 1998 to 2008. Quality was assessed and independently quantified by two observers using the STARD (STandards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials) statements. The interobserver proportion of agreement and kappa coefficient were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 120 articles comprising 10 randomized controlled trials and 110 diagnostic accuracy studies were evaluated. Most studies related to colonic polyp detection (30 %) or evaluation of Barrett's esophagus (29 %). Chromoscopy (45 %), fluorescence (21 %), and narrow-band imaging (14 %) were the technologies most often evaluated. The mean number of items (i. e. standard requirements) fulfilled by the randomized controlled trials was 15.7 +/- 2.2 out of 22 while for the diagnostic accuracy studies it was 12.2 +/- 3.6 out of 25. Reporting of study results was complete in 90 % of the randomized controlled trials, but only 65 % of the diagnostic accuracy studies presented a cross-table of results. The global proportion of agreement between observers was 97 % in randomized controlled trials and 95 % in diagnostic accuracy studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent publications in diagnostic endoscopy achieve only medium quality according to the available statements. It seems that it would be useful for authors, reviewers, and editors to be familiar with and apply these statements. The development of a specific checklist for diagnostic endoscopy publications might be helpful toward achieving better quality reporting in the future.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

2016Framing of research question using the PICOT format in randomised controlled trials of venous ulcer disease: a protocol for a systematic survey of the literature 2016Is There an Association between STARD Statement Adherence and Citation Rate?2014Randomized Controlled Trials in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury: A Review of Compliance to CONSORT Statement 2012The reporting quality of studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of anti-CCP antibody in rheumatoid arthritis and its impact on diagnostic estimates 2014Adherence to reporting guidelines in observational studies concerning exposure to persistent organic pollutants and effects on semen parameters 2014Reporting standards in cardiac MRI, CT, and SPECT diagnostic accuracy studies: analysis of the impact of STARD criteria 2017The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: A systematic survey 2016Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies on pelvic floor three‐dimensional transperineal ultrasound: a systematic review

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.