Facilitating Prospective Registration of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: A STARD Initiative.

Although the introduction of prospective trial registration policies has been successful in reducing waste in research, diagnostic accuracy studies are rarely registered. We describe why diagnostic accuracy studies should be registered, and where and how this can be done. Advantages of registration include the identification of unpublished studies, prevention of selective outcome reporting, prevention of unnecessary duplication of research, collaboration between researchers, and linkage of study materials...

[1]  Seong Ho Park,et al.  Connecting Technological Innovation in Artificial Intelligence to Real-world Medical Practice through Rigorous Clinical Validation: What Peer-reviewed Medical Journals Could Do , 2018, Journal of Korean medical science.

[2]  Jérémie F. Cohen,et al.  Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration , 2016, BMJ Open.

[4]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015 , 2016, Research Integrity and Peer Review.

[5]  Jérémie F. Cohen,et al.  Time to publication among completed diagnostic accuracy studies: associated with reported accuracy estimates , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[6]  David Moher,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? , 2016, The Lancet.

[7]  A. Noel-Storr,et al.  Associations with publication and assessing publication bias in dementia diagnostic test accuracy studies , 2015, International journal of geriatric psychiatry.

[8]  David Moher,et al.  STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Roderik F Viergever,et al.  Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013 , 2015, BMJ Open.

[10]  Christopher W. Jones,et al.  Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[11]  Daniel R Shanahan,et al.  Linked publications from a single trial: a thread of evidence , 2014, Trials.

[12]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Registering diagnostic and prognostic trials of tests: is it the right thing to do? , 2014, Clinical chemistry.

[13]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  The time has come to register diagnostic and prognostic research. , 2014, Clinical chemistry.

[14]  D. A. Korevaar,et al.  Publication and reporting of test accuracy studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. , 2014, Clinical chemistry.

[15]  D. A. Korevaar,et al.  Infrequent and incomplete registration of test accuracy studies: analysis of recent study reports , 2014, BMJ Open.

[16]  Published Online.  Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste , 2014 .

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

[18]  K. Dickersin,et al.  ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[19]  Philippe Ravaud,et al.  Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process , 2013, PloS one.

[20]  L. Hooft,et al.  Trial Registration Numbers Are Underreported in Biomedical Publications , 2012, PloS one.

[21]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Quantifying the accuracy of a diagnostic test or marker. , 2012, Clinical chemistry.

[22]  L. Hooft,et al.  Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews , 2012, PloS one.

[23]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  The evolution of trial registries and their use to assess the clinical trial enterprise. , 2012, JAMA.

[24]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Prospective registration of marker evaluation studies: time to act. , 2011, Clinical chemistry.

[25]  P. Sandercock,et al.  No evidence of bias in the process of publication of diagnostic accuracy studies in stroke submitted as abstracts. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[26]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Reporting bias in diagnostic and prognostic studies: time for action. , 2008, Clinical chemistry.

[27]  R. Horton,et al.  Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2005, Saudi medical journal.

[28]  R. Horton,et al.  Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2005, The Medical journal of Australia.

[29]  R. Horton,et al.  Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , 2005, The Lancet.

[30]  L. Hooft,et al.  [A national prospective trial register for randomised controlled trials: ethical and practical necessity]. , 2004, Nederlandsch tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[31]  Christiane,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2004, Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics.

[32]  Wolzt,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.