Compliance With Standards for STARD 2015 Reporting Recommendations in Pathology

Keenan O. Hogan · Garth Robert Fraga

15 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology

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 Publishing and Open Access Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Lack of experimental reproducibility has led to growing interest in guidelines to enhance completeness and transparency in research reporting. This retrospective survey sought to determine compliance with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 statement in the recent pathology scientific literature. METHODS: Two raters independently scored 171 pathology diagnostic accuracy studies for compliance with 34 STARD items and subcomponents. Overall adherence was calculated as a proportion after excluding nonapplicable items. RESULTS: After excluding nonapplicable items, there was 50% overall adherence to STARD reporting recommendations. In total, 15.44 ± 3.59 items were reported per article (range, 4-28 out of maximum possible of 34). There was substantial heterogeneity in individual item reporting, with greater than 75% reporting in eight of 34 items and less than 25% reporting in 11 of 34 items. Less than 10% of articles reported hypotheses, subgroup analyses for confounding, sample size calculations, subject flow diagrams, study registrations, and links to full study protocols. Significantly more items were reported in articles from journals that endorsed STARD (16.14 vs 14.84, P = .0175). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate incomplete reporting of essential items in pathology diagnostic accuracy studies. More vigorous enforcement of reporting checklists might improve adherence to minimum reporting standards.

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 — 15 citations exist upstream.

References

2016STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence 2013P-curve: A key to the file-drawer.2014Reproducibility in Science 2013A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies 2018A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries 2013Overinterpretation and Misreporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Evidence of “Spin”2016Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: A before and after study

Cited by

2023Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?2025Adherence to TRIPOD+AI guideline: an updated reporting assessment tool 2024Assessment of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guideline adherence in medical imaging diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2023 2022Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Pathology Abstracts: Compliance with STARD for Abstracts Guidelines

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.