Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

Abstract Objective: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study, and to evaluate a study's 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 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 patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and the reference standard, or both. Conclusions: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the STARD checklist and 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 Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering group aims to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The group describes and explains the development of a checklist and flow diagram for authors of reports

[1]  David Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[3]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. , 1995, JAMA.

[4]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[5]  David Moher,et al.  The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[6]  J. Hogg Magnetic resonance imaging. , 1994, Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service.

[7]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. , 1999, JAMA.

[8]  C. Metz Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[9]  D. Rennie,et al.  The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. , 2003, Annals of internal medicine.

[10]  R J Panzer,et al.  Workup Bias in Prediction Research , 1987, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  P. Greenland,et al.  Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures. Principles and applications. , 1981, Annals of internal medicine.

[12]  A. Walker,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting in randomised controlled trials. , 2004, Journal of wound care.

[13]  J. Polak,et al.  Summary receiver operating characteristic curves as a technique for meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of duplex ultrasonography in peripheral arterial disease. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[14]  G H Guyatt,et al.  A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. , 1986, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[15]  Lois Ann Colaianni,et al.  Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals , 1991, The Medical journal of Australia.

[16]  J. Knottnerus The Effects of Disease Verification and Referral on the Relationship Between Symptoms and Diseases , 1987, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[17]  D. Moher,et al.  Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. , 2001, JAMA.

[18]  C B Begg,et al.  Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[20]  J. V. Engelshoven,et al.  Peripheral arterial disease: meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of MR angiography. , 2000, Radiology.

[21]  M Egger,et al.  Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. , 2001, JAMA.

[22]  D L Kent,et al.  Disease, level of impact, and quality of research methods. Three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging. , 1992, Investigative radiology.