STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

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.

[1]  Lotty Hooft,et al.  Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: some improvements after 10 years of STARD. , 2015, Radiology.

[2]  G. Collins,et al.  Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia , 2014, Neurology.

[5]  F. Collins,et al.  Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility , 2014, Nature.

[6]  David Moher,et al.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research , 2014, The Lancet.

[7]  Lotty Hooft,et al.  Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD , 2013, Evidence-Based Medicine.

[8]  Susan Mallett,et al.  A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". , 2013, Radiology.

[10]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Beyond diagnostic accuracy: the clinical utility of diagnostic tests. , 2013, Clinical chemistry.

[11]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Quantifying the added value of a diagnostic test or marker. , 2012, Clinical chemistry.

[12]  David Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. , 2010, JAMA.

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network , 2010, BMC medicine.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMC medicine.

[16]  David Moher,et al.  Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. , 2009, JAMA.

[17]  Iveta Simera,et al.  EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research , 2008, Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal.

[18]  Patrick M. M. Bossuyt,et al.  The STARD Statement for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Application to the History and Physical Examination , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[19]  D. Rennie,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. , 2000, Spine.

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