Reporting standards in cardiac MRI, CT, and SPECT diagnostic accuracy studies: analysis of the impact of STARD criteria

Edd Maclean · Isa Stone · Felix Ceelen · Xabier García‐Albéniz · Wieland H. Sommer · Steffen Erhard Petersen

9 citations0/0 files storedEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging

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 Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

AIMS: Diagnostic accuracy studies determine the clinical value of non-invasive cardiac imaging tests. The 'STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies' (STARD) were published in 2003 to improve the quality of study reporting. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of cardiac computed tomography (CCT), single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) diagnostic accuracy studies; to evaluate the impact of STARD; and to investigate the relationships between reporting quality, journal impact factor, and study citation index. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly generated six groups of 50 diagnostic accuracy studies: 'CMR 1995-2002', 'CMR 2004-11', 'CCT 1995-2002', 'CCT 2004-11', 'SPECT 1995-2002', and 'SPECT 2004-11'. The 300 studies were double-read by two blinded reviewers and reporting quality determined by % adherence to the 25 STARD criteria. Reporting quality increased from 65.3% before STARD to 74.1% after (P = 0.003) in CMR studies and from 61.6 to 79.0% (P < 0.001) in CCT studies. SPECT studies showed no significant change: 71.9% before and 71.5% after STARD (P = 0.92). Journals advising authors to refer to STARD had significantly higher impact factors than those that did not (P = 0.03), and journals with above-median impact factors published studies of significantly higher reporting quality (P < 0.001). Since STARD, citation index has not significantly increased (P = 0.14), but, after adjustment for impact factor, reporting quality continues to increase by ∼1.5% each year. CONCLUSION: Reporting standards for diagnostic accuracy studies of non-invasive cardiac imaging are at most satisfactory and have improved since the introduction of STARD. Adherence to STARD should be mandatory for authors 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 — 9 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative 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 2009Health Insurers and Medical-Imaging Policy — A Work in Progress 2006The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement 2012Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals 2003The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Group.2009STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK… and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll?

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.