The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Since the publication of STARD, several evaluations have pointed to small but statistically significant improvements in reporting accuracy studies (mean gain 1.4 items (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 2.2)).5 10”
From STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Evidence suggests that adherence to STARD improves the reporting of key information in diagnostic test accuracy studies 17,18 .”
From The STARD-AI reporting guideline for diagnostic accuracy studies using artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“studies have shown that adherence to the STARD checklist leads to improved reporting of key study parameters.7 8”
From Developing a reporting guideline for artificial intelligence-centred diagnostic test accuracy studies: the STARD-AI protocol (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Beckett, A. H., Rowland, M., & TURNER, P. (1965) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(65)91037-8 · Cited by 16,917
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., & Bouter, L. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 · Cited by 4,374
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Self-citationTowards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Self-citationEmpirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & Lijmer, J. G. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1 · Cited by 1,124
Self-citationMoher, D., Jones, A., Lepage, L., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1992 · Cited by 1,027
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 10.1373/49.1.7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.1995.03530080061042 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–119 of 119
Arafat, H. M., Ali, A., Din, T. A. D. A. T., Shamallakh, O. M., Jusoh, A. R., Yahya, M. M., Zain, W. Z. W., & Rahman, W. F. W. A. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0354728 · Cited by 1
Standard Elements in Studies of Adverse Events and Medical Error: the SESAME statement
Griffey, R. T., Stockwell, D. C., Adler, L. M., Ancona, R. M., Classen, D., Schneider, R. M., Rutjes, A. W., Carpenter, C. R., Unbeck, M., & The SESAME Development Team (2026) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001583 · Cited by 1
Plebani, M., & Melichar, B. (2014) · Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · doi:10.1515/cclm-2014-0100 · Cited by 1
Publication Bias in Radiology: How Does It Happen and What Is the Cost?
Fielding, J. R. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019190985 · Cited by 1
Mazumdar, M., Zhong, X., & Ferket, B. S. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52636-2_281 · Cited by 1
Korevaar, D. A. (2017) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.18833 · Cited by 1
Self-citationReporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in radiology
Ochodo, E. (2014) · South African Journal of Radiology · doi:10.4102/sajr.v18i1.712
Beaumier, M., Deshêtres, A., Despatis, M., Bronchti, G., & Laurencelle, L. (2019) · Revue Francophone de Cicatrisation · doi:10.1016/j.refrac.2019.11.006
Maximizing research value: adequate reporting and effective (de-)implementation strategies
Heus, P. (2020) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · doi:10.33540/8
Knez, N., Kroflin, K., & Fraga, G. R. (2023) · Journal of Cutaneous Pathology · doi:10.1111/cup.14504
Turning Your Presentations/Posters to Publications
Prasad, S., Garg, A. K., & Saini, J. S. (2025) · Indian journal of radiology and imaging - new series/Indian journal of radiology and imaging/Indian Journal of Radiology & Imaging · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1800864
Liu, C., Qi, Y., Liu, X., Chen, M., Xiong, Y., Huang, S., Zou, K., Tan, J., & Sun, X. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22599989
Liu, C., Qi, Y., Liu, X., Chen, M., Xiong, Y., Huang, S., Zou, K., Tan, J., & Sun, X. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22599986
Liu, C., Qi, Y., Liu, X., Chen, M., Xiong, Y., Huang, S., Zou, K., Tan, J., & Sun, X. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22599992
Rivoirard, R. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/bbd245c8z3efdz4412z99a9z55363bd4c4bf
Shortcomings in and preferred strategies for evaluating biomarkers as medical tests
Olsen, M. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/535e1627z1a35z437cz8c94z8701a5d0d2b7
Kazi, S., Al-Ghita, M. K., Dawit, H., Osman, H., Ansari, D., Islam, N., Lam, E., Korevaar, D. A., Bossuyt, P. M., Cohen, J. F., et al. (2026) · Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal · doi:10.1177/08465371261458187
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
