Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?

Ann-Christine Stahl · Anne-Sophie Tietz · Marc Dewey · Benjamin Kendziora

13 citations0/0 files storedInsights into 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 Academic Writing and Publishing Radiology practices and education

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether making the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) mandatory by the leading journal 'Radiology' in 2016 improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS: A validated search term was used to identify diagnostic accuracy studies published in Radiology in 2015 and 2019. STARD adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Each item was scored as yes (1 point) if adequately reported or as no (0 points) if not. The total STARD score per article was calculated. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate differences of the total STARD scores between 2015 and 2019. In addition, the total STARD score was compared between studies stratified by study design, citation rate, and data collection. RESULTS: The median number of reported STARD items for the total of 66 diagnostic accuracy studies from 2015 to 2019 was 18.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 17.5-20.0) of 29. Adherence to the STARD checklist significantly improved the STARD score from a median of 18.0 (IQR 15.5-19.5) in 2015 to a median of 19.5 (IQR 18.5-21.5) in 2019 (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studies stratified by mode of data collection (prospective vs. retrospective studies, p = 0.68), study design (cohort vs. case-control studies, p = 0.81), and citation rate (two groups divided by median split [< 0.56 citations/month vs. ≥ 0.56 citations/month], p = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Making use of the STARD checklist mandatory significantly increased the adherence with reporting standards for diagnostic accuracy studies and should be considered by editors and publishers for widespread implementation. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Editors may consider making reporting guidelines mandatory to improve the scientific quality.

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 — 13 citations exist upstream.

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative 2016STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration 2012The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews 2015STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2004Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy

Cited by

2024Assessment of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guideline adherence in medical imaging diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2023

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.