Articlehybrid2024

Evaluation of adherence to STARD for abstracts in a diverse sample of diagnostic accuracy abstracts published in 2012 and 2019 reveals suboptimal reporting practices

Constance Dubois · Haben Dawit · Daniel Arnoldus Korevaar · Yasaman Vali · Alma Al Sibaaie · Matthew D. F. McInnes +3 more

5 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

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 Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the completeness of reporting in a sample of abstracts on diagnostic accuracy studies before and after the release of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) for abstracts in 2017. METHODS: We included 278 diagnostic accuracy abstracts published in 2012 (N = 138) and 2019 (N = 140) and indexed in EMBASE. We analyzed their adherence to 10 items of the 11-item STARD for abstracts checklist, and we explored variability in reporting across abstract characteristics using multivariable Poisson modeling. RESULTS: Most of the 278 abstracts (75%) were published in discipline-specific journals, with a median impact factor of 2.9 (IQR: 1.9-3.7). The majority (41%) of abstracts reported on imaging tests. Overall, a mean of 5.4/10 (SD: 1.4) STARD for abstracts items was reported (range: 1.2-9.7). Items reported in less than one-third of abstracts included 'eligible patient demographics' (24%), 'setting of recruitment' (30%), 'method of enrollment' (18%), 'estimates of precision for accuracy measures' (26%), and 'protocol registration details' (4%). We observed substantial variability in reporting across several abstract characteristics, with higher adherence associated with the use of a structured abstract, no journal limit for abstract word count, abstract word count above the median, one-gate enrollment design, and prospective data collection. There was no evidence of increase in the number of reported items between 2012 and 2019 (5.2 vs 5.5 items; adjusted reporting ratio: 1.04 [95% CI: 0.98-1.10]). CONCLUSION: This sample of diagnostic accuracy abstracts revealed suboptimal reporting practices without improvement between 2012 and 2019. The test evaluation field could benefit from targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve completeness of reporting in abstracts.

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 — 5 citations exist upstream.

References

2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2015STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2003Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy.2008CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts 2014Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial 2009Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies 2013Overinterpretation and Misreporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Evidence of “Spin”2014Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Some Improvements after 10 Years of STARD

Cited by

2025Evaluation of Imaging Research Adherence to the STARD 2015 Reporting Guideline: Update 9 Years After Implementation and Baseline Assessment

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.