Search

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

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.

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.

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.