The Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Glaucoma Using Scanning Laser Polarimetry

Bhuma Paranjothy · Manoharan Shunmugam · Augusto Azuara‐Blanco

16 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Glaucoma

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 Glaucoma and retinal disorders Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

PURPOSE: Scanning laser polarimetry (SLP) has been proposed as a useful diagnostic test for glaucoma. This study was conducted to evaluate the quality of reporting of published studies using the SLP for diagnosing glaucoma. METHODS: A validated Medline and hand search of English-language articles reporting on measures of diagnostic accuracy of the SLP for glaucoma was performed. Two reviewers independently selected and appraised the manuscripts. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of each publication. RESULTS: A total of 47 papers were identified of which the first 10 (from 1997 to 2000) and the last 10 articles (from 2004 to 2005) were appraised. Interobserver rating agreement of STARD items was high (85.5% agreement, kappa=0.796). The number of STARD items properly reported ranged from 3/25 to 19/25. Only a quarter of studies (5/20) explicitly reported more than half of the STARD items. Important aspects of the methodology were often missing such as participant sampling (reported in 40% of manuscripts), masking of the readers of the index test and reference standard (reported in 20% of manuscripts), and estimation of uncertainty (eg, 95% confidence intervals, reported in 25% of manuscripts). There was a slight increase in the number of STARD items reported with time. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests for glaucoma with SLP is suboptimal. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.

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 — 16 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement 1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 1999Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests 2003The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration 2003Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy.

Cited by

2015Methodology and reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies of automated perimetry in glaucoma: evaluation using a standardised approach 2017Diagnostic accuracy research in glaucoma is still incompletely reported: An application of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 2009Estudio observacional: evaluación de la calidad metodológica de la investigación diagnóstica en España tras la publicación de la guía STARD

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

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