Cited by 110Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Some Improvements after 10 Years of STARD

Open access
Korevaar, Daniël A., Wang, Junfeng, van Enst, W. Annefloor, Leeflang, Mariska M., Hooft, Lotty, Smidt, Nynke, Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.·2015·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate how diagnostic accuracy study reports published in 2012 adhered to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement and whether there were any differences in reporting compared with 2000 and 2004. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was searched for studies published in 12 high-impact-factor journals in 2012 that evaluated the accuracy of one or more diagnostic tests against a clinical reference standard. Two independent reviewers scored reporting completeness of each article with the 25-item STARD checklist. Mixed-effects modeling was used to analyze differences in reporting with previous evaluations from articles published in 2000 and 2004. RESULTS: Included were 112 articles. The overall mean number of STARD items reported in 2012 was 15.3 ± 3.9 (standard deviation; range, 6.0-23.5). There was an improvement of 3.4 items (95% confidence interval: 2.6, 4.3) compared with studies published in 2000, and an improvement of 1.7 items (95% confidence interval: 0.9, 2.5) compared with studies published in 2004. Significantly more items were reported for single-gate studies compared with multiple-gate studies (16.8 vs 12.1, respectively; P < .001) and for studies that evaluated imaging tests compared with laboratory tests and other types of tests (17.0 vs 14.0 vs 14.5, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Completeness of reporting improved in the 10 years after the launch of STARD, but it remains suboptimal for many articles. Reporting of inclusion criteria and sampling methods for recruiting patients, information about blinding, and confidence intervals for accuracy estimates are in need of further improvement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.14141160

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Korevaar, D. A., Wang, J., van Enst, W. A., Leeflang, M. M., Hooft, L., Smidt, N., & Bossuyt, P. M. M.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2015-03
Volume
274
Issue
3
Pages
781-789
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2128081270
Cited by
110
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 1
FWCI
13.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (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
diagnostic accuracy, reporting quality, reporting completeness, reporting guidelines adherence, imaging tests, laboratory testing, blinding, confidence intervals, inclusion criteria
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Publishing, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, Likelihood Functions, Odds Ratio

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