Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

PURPOSE To evaluate quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 in journals with impact factor of at least 4 by using items of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement published later in 2003. MATERIALS AND METHODS English-language articles on primary diagnostic accuracy studies in 2000 were identified with validated search strategy in MEDLINE. Articles published in journals with impact factor of 4 or higher that regularly publish articles on diagnostic accuracy were selected. Two independent reviewers evaluated quality of reporting by using STARD statement, which consists of 25 items and encourages use of a flow diagram. Total STARD score for each article was calculated by summing number of reported items. Subgroup analyses were performed for study design (case-control or cohort study) by using Student t tests for continuous outcomes and chi(2) tests for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS Included were 124 articles published in 2000 in 12 journals: 33 case-control and 91 cohort studies. Only 41% of articles (51 of 124) reported on more than 50% of STARD items, while no articles reported on more than 80%. A flow chart was presented in two articles. Assessment of reporting on individual items of STARD statement revealed wide variation, with some items described in 11% of articles and others in 92%. Mean STARD score (0-25 points available) was 11.9 (range, 3.5-19.5). Mean difference in STARD score between cohort studies and case-control studies was 1.53 (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.82). CONCLUSION Quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 is less than optimal, even in journals with high impact factor. Authors, editors, and reviewers should pay more attention to reporting by checking STARD statement items and including a flow diagram to represent study design and patient flow.

[1]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[2]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[3]  D. Bruns,et al.  Toward a checklist for reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy of medical tests. , 2000, Clinical chemistry.

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

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

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

[7]  P D Bezemer,et al.  Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement , 1996, BMJ.

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

[10]  J. Knottnerus,et al.  Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  F. Harrell,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity should be de-emphasized in diagnostic accuracy studies. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[12]  L. Bouter,et al.  The accuracy of physical diagnostic tests for assessing meniscal lesions of the knee: a meta-analysis. , 2001, The Journal of family practice.

[13]  L. Bouter,et al.  The test of Lasègue: systematic review of the accuracy in diagnosing herniated discs. , 2000, Spine.

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

[15]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. , 2004, Family practice.