Search

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies., (© 2015 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.)

Objective: Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results., Methods: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy., Results: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and/or the reference standard., Conclusions: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.

Aim: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the general isability of its results., Methods: The standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a 2 day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy., Results: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both., Conclusions: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

The objective of the 'Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy' (STARD) initiative is to improve the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, so as to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalibility of its results. The group searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies. This was used to draw up a list of potential items. During a consensus meeting, a group of researchers, medical journal editors, and members of professional organisations reduced this list to a usable checklist. Wherever possible, evidence from the literature was used to justify the decisions made. The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which a list of 75 potential items was extracted. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist. A generic flow diagram was drawn up to provide guidance on the method for including patients, the order in which tests were to be conducted and the number of patients to undergo the test being evaluated, the reference standard, or both. A scientific publication can only be assessed when the reporting is both correct and complete. Use of the checklist and flow diagram will improve the quality of reports produced, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journal editors and other interested parties.

Whether or not patients are better off from undergoing a diagnostic test will depend on how test information is used to guide subsequent decisions on starting, stopping, or modifying treatment. Consequently, the practical value of a diagnostic test can only be assessed by taking into account subsequent health outcomes. In the appraisal of diagnostic test studies, it is essential to discriminate between studies that report on the accuracy of a diagnostic test and studies that report on health outcomes of strategies that incorporate diagnostic tests. In a study that reports on diagnostic accuracy, a cohort of patients is subjected to at least two diagnostic tests: the index test and the reference test, the latter usually being the best method available to detect the target condition. The accuracy of the index test can be expressed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, or likelihood ratios. Studies that compare two or more strategies that incorporate diagnostic tests as well as therapeutic interventions should be approached differently. Such studies do not require expression of test accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The merit of diagnostic tests evaluated in such studies can be expressed by comparing relevant outcomes of both strategies. The effectiveness of such strategies can be compared similarly as the effectiveness of treatment. However, due to the fact that the effect of a diagnostic test on health outcome is not as direct as the effect of treatment on health outcome, the design of outcome studies reporting on diagnostic tests requires special attention. It is important to establish a clear link between the result of the test under study and subsequent therapeutic management. Furthermore, trial efficiency can be improved by moving the point of randomization from the decision point, whether or not to test, to the point where a decision has to be made regarding what to do with the positive test results.

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalizability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding, and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale, and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart, and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in health care.

Background: To comprehend the results of diagnostic accuracy studies, readers must understand the design, conduct, analysis, and results of such studies. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors., Objective: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability., Methods: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy., Results: The search for published guidelines on diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. The consensus meeting shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both., Conclusions: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

It is indispensable for any meta-analysis that potential sources of heterogeneity are examined, before one considers pooling the results of primary studies into summary estimates with enhanced precision. In reviews of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of tests, variability beyond chance can be attributed to between-study differences in the selected cutpoint for positivity, in patient selection and clinical setting, in the type of test used, in the type of reference standard, or any combination of these factors. In addition, heterogeneity in study results can also be caused by flaws in study design. This paper critically examines some of the potential reasons for heterogeneity and the methods to explore them. Empirical support for the existence of different sources of variation is reviewed. Incorporation of sources of variability explicitly into systematic reviews on diagnostic accuracy is demonstrated with data from a recent review. Application of regression techniques in meta-analysis of diagnostic tests can provide relevant additional information. Results of such analyses will help understand problems with the transferability of diagnostic tests and to point out flaws in primary studies. As such, they can guide the design of future studies., (Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Context: The literature contains a large number of potential biases in the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Strict application of appropriate methodological criteria would invalidate the clinical application of most study results., Objective: To empirically determine the quantitative effect of study design shortcomings on estimates of diagnostic accuracy., Design and Setting: Observational study of the methodological features of 184 original studies evaluating 218 diagnostic tests. Meta-analyses on diagnostic tests were identified through a systematic search of the literature using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and DARE databases and the Cochrane Library (1996-1997). Associations between study characteristics and estimates of diagnostic accuracy were evaluated with a regression model., Main Outcome Measures: Relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR), which compared the diagnostic odds ratios of studies of a given test that lacked a particular methodological feature with those without the corresponding shortcomings in design., Results: Fifteen (6.8%) of 218 evaluations met all 8 criteria; 64 (30%) met 6 or more. Studies evaluating tests in a diseased population and a separate control group overestimated the diagnostic performance compared with studies that used a clinical population (RDOR, 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.5). Studies in which different reference tests were used for positive and negative results of the test under study overestimated the diagnostic performance compared with studies using a single reference test for all patients (RDOR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.3). Diagnostic performance was also overestimated when the reference test was interpreted with knowledge of the test result (RDOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9), when no criteria for the test were described (RDOR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), and when no description of the population under study was provided (RDOR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7)., Conclusion: These data provide empirical evidence that diagnostic studies with methodological shortcomings may overestimate the accuracy of a diagnostic test, particularly those including nonrepresentative patients or applying different reference standards.