Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.

OBJECTIVE 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, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

[6]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

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

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

[9]  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.

[10]  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.

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

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

[13]  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.

[14]  Dennis G. Fryback,et al.  The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging , 1991, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

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

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

[17]  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.