Cited by 119Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD

Open access
Korevaar, Daniël A, van Enst, W Annefloor, Spijker, René, Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Hooft, Lotty·2014·Evidence Based Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Poor reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies impedes an objective appraisal of the clinical performance of diagnostic tests. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement, first published in 2003, aims to improve the reporting quality of such studies. OBJECTIVE: To investigate to which extent published diagnostic accuracy studies adhere to the 25-item STARD checklist, whether the reporting quality has improved after STARD's launch and whether there are any factors associated with adherence. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Methodology Register of the Cochrane Library for studies that primarily aimed to examine the reporting quality of articles on diagnostic accuracy studies in humans by evaluating adherence to STARD. Study selection was performed in duplicate; data were extracted by one author and verified by the second author. FINDINGS: We included 16 studies, analysing 1496 articles in total. Three studies investigated adherence in a general sample of diagnostic accuracy studies; the others did so in a specific field of research. The overall mean number of items reported varied from 9.1 to 14.3 between 13 evaluations that evaluated all 25 STARD items. Six studies quantitatively compared post-STARD with pre-STARD articles. Combining these results in a random-effects meta-analysis revealed a modest but significant increase in adherence after STARD's introduction (mean difference 1.41 items (95% CI 0.65 to 2.18)). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies was consistently moderate, at least through halfway the 2000s. Our results suggest a small improvement in the years after the introduction of STARD. Adherence to STARD should be further promoted among researchers, editors and peer reviewers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/eb-2013-101637

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Systematic review on January 25, 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://ebm.bmj.com/ Evid Based Med: first published as 10.1136/eb-2013-101637 on 24 December 2013. Downloaded from Evid Based Med April 2014 | volume 19 | number 2 | Systematic review on January 25, 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://ebm.bmj.com/ Evid Based Med: first published as 10.1136/eb-2013-101637 on 24 December 2013. Downloaded from Systematic review on January 25, 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://ebm.bmj.com/ Evid Based Med: first published as 10.1136/eb-2013-101637 on 24 December 2013. Downloaded from Evid Based Med April 2014 | volume 19 | number 2 | Systematic review on January 25, 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://ebm.bmj.com/ Evid Based Med: first published as 10.1136/eb-2013-101637 on 24 December 2013. Downloaded from
  2. Systematic review on January 25, 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://ebm.bmj.com/ Evid Based Med: first published as 10.1136/eb-2013-101637 on 24 December 2013. Downloaded from · DOI
  3. Gomez SN, Hernandez-Aguado I, Lumbreras B. [Observacional study: evaluation of the diagnostic research methodology in Spain after STARD publication]. Med Clin (Barc) 2009;133:302-10.
  4. Evid Based Med April 2014 | volume 19 | number 2 | Systematic review on January 25, 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://ebm.bmj.com/ Evid Based Med: first published as 10.1136/eb-2013-101637 on 24 December 2013. Downloaded from

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Korevaar, D. A., van Enst, W. A., Spijker, R., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & Hooft, L.
Affiliations
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Evidence Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-12-24
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
47-54
ISSN
  • 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-6810
OpenAlex
W1963909263
Cited by
119
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 9
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
reporting quality, diagnostic accuracy studies, reporting guidelines adherence, diagnostic performance, peer review
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Quality Control, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review