Search

Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard. Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish ‘International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials’. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared with chest radiography reduced lung-cancer mortality. We examined the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST. METHODS: We estimated mean life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screening. Estimations of life-years were based on the number of observed deaths that occurred during the trial and the projected survival of persons who were alive at the end of the trial. Quality adjustments were derived from a subgroup of participants who were selected to complete quality-of-life surveys. Costs were based on utilization rates and Medicare reimbursements. We also performed analyses of subgroups defined according to age, sex, smoking history, and risk of lung cancer and performed sensitivity analyses based on several assumptions. RESULTS: As compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional $1,631 per person (95% confidence interval [CI], 1,557 to 1,709) and provided an additional 0.0316 life-years per person (95% CI, 0.0154 to 0.0478) and 0.0201 QALYs per person (95% CI, 0.0088 to 0.0314). The corresponding ICERs were $52,000 per life-year gained (95% CI, 34,000 to 106,000) and $81,000 per QALY gained (95% CI, 52,000 to 186,000). However, the ICERs varied widely in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated that screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT would cost $81,000 per QALY gained, but we also determined that modest changes in our assumptions would greatly alter this figure. The determination of whether screening outside the trial will be cost-effective will depend on how screening is implemented.

Medical imaging has seen substantial and rapid technical advances during the past decade, including advances in image acquisition devices, processing and analysis software, and agents to enhance specificity. Traditionally, medical imaging has defined anatomy, but increasingly newer, more advanced, imaging technologies provide biochemical and physiologic information based on both static and dynamic modalities. These advanced technologies are important not only for detecting disease but for characterizing and assessing change of disease with time or therapy. Because of the rapidity of these advances, research to determine the utility of quantitative imaging in either clinical research or clinical practice has not had time to mature. Methods to appropriately develop, assess, regulate, and reimburse must be established for these advanced technologies. Efficient and methodical processes that meet the needs of stakeholders in the biomedical research community, therapeutics developers, and health care delivery enterprises will ultimately benefit individual patients. To help address this, the authors formed a collaborative program-the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance. This program draws from the very successful precedent set by the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise effort but is adapted to the needs of imaging science. Strategic guidance supporting the development, qualification, and deployment of quantitative imaging biomarkers will lead to improved standardization of imaging tests, proof of imaging test performance, and greater use of imaging to predict the biologic behavior of tissue and monitor therapy response. These, in turn, confer value to corporate stakeholders, providing incentives to bring new and innovative products to market.

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.