The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Some Improvements after 10 Years of STARD
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
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 [5]
In the citing paper
“A growing number of evaluations have identified deficiencies in the reporting of test accuracy studies.5”
From STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (2015) · cites this paper as [5]
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 [17]
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 [8]
Citations
Cites
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
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., 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-citationCase–Control and Two-Gate Designs in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Vandenbroucke, J. P., Glas, A. S., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2005) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2005.048595 · Cited by 516
Self-citationCobo, E., Cortes, J., Ribera, J. M., Cardellach, F., Selva-O'Callaghan, A., Kostov, B., Garcia, L., Cirugeda, L., Altman, D. G., Gonzalez, J. A., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d6783 · Cited by 290
A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., & Mallett, S. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014 · Cited by 283
The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement
Smidt, N., Rutjes, A. W., van der Windt, D., Ostelo, R., Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2006) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000238386.41398.30 · Cited by 233
Self-citationA systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature
Thabane, L., Samaan, Mbuagbaw, L. C. E., Kosa, S. D., Debono, V. B., Dillenburg, Zhang, Fruci, V., Dennis, B. B., & Bawor, M. (2013) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s43952 · Cited by 199
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 10.1373/49.1.7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · DOI · Paper page
- Samaan Z, 2013, J Multidiscip Healthc, 6, 169
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–110 of 110
What Criteria should be met before a New Diagnostic Test is Deployed in Clinical Practice
Rowl, M. (2020) · Journal of Pediatrics & Neonatal Care
Princípios de Hong Kong para a Avaliação de Pesquisadores: Promovendo a Integridade em Pesquisa
Moher, D., Bouter, L. M., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2020) · doi:10.21452/rode2021.01
Quelle est la qualité de la recherche médicale?
(2015) · Bulletin des Médecins Suisses · doi:10.4414/bms.2015.04171
Lovell, D. P. (2022) · Biomarkers · doi:10.1080/1354750x.2022.2096927
Indrayan, A., Vishwakarma, G., Malhotra, R., Gupta, P., Sachdev, H., Karande, S., Asthana, S., & Labani, S. (2022) · Journal of Postgraduate Medicine · doi:10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_460_22 · Cited by 2
Knez, N., Kroflin, K., & Fraga, G. R. (2023) · Journal of Cutaneous Pathology · doi:10.1111/cup.14504
Cénac, I. (2015) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b715fb95zb147z456czb4e5zcbb7e0497388
Shortcomings in and preferred strategies for evaluating biomarkers as medical tests
Olsen, M. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/535e1627z1a35z437cz8c94z8701a5d0d2b7
Metadata
- 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
- FWCI
- 13.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.amsterdamumc.nl
- 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
