The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Abstract
Background: To comprehend the results of diagnostic accuracy studies, readers must understand the design, conduct, analysis, and results of such studies. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Objective: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability. Methods: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. Results: The search for published guidelines on diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. The consensus meeting shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both. Conclusions: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.
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.
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
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Self-citationImproving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Moher, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545
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
Self-citationThe 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-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 1986, Can Med Assoc J, 134, 587
- 1991, Med Decis Making, 11, 88, 10.1177/0272989X9101100203 · DOI · Paper page
- 1992, Invest Radiol, 27, 245, 10.1097/00004424-199203000-00014 · DOI
- 1981, Ann Intern Med, 94, 557
- 1991, Clinical epidemiology, 2nd ed, 47
- 1978, Semin Nucl Med, 8, 283, 10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 1995, JAMA, 274, 645, 10.1001/jama.1995.03530080061042 · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530080061042
- 2000, Radiology, 217, 105, 10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc11105 · DOI · Paper page
- 1996, Acad Radiol, 3, 361, 10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80257-1 · DOI
- 2001, JAMA, 285, 1992, 10.1001/jama.285.15.1992 · DOI · Paper page
- 1997, JAMA, 277, 927, 10.1001/jama.1997.03540350077040 · DOI · Paper page
- 2003, Clin Chem, 49, 7, 10.1373/49.1.7 · doi:10.1373/49.1.7 · Paper page
- 2001, JAMA, 285, 1996, 10.1001/jama.285.15.1996 · DOI · Paper page
- 1987, Med Decis Making, 7, 139, 10.1177/0272989X8700700304 · DOI
- 1987, Med Decis Making, 7, 115, 10.1177/0272989X8700700209 · DOI
- 1987, Stat Med, 6, 411, 10.1002/sim.4780060402 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h5527 · Cited by 3,660
Self-citationSTARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration
Cohen, J. F., Korevaar, D. A., Altman, D. G., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Hooft, L., Irwig, L., Levine, D., Reitsma, J. B., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799 · Cited by 2,570
Self-citationRapid Molecular Detection of Tuberculosis and Rifampin Resistance
Boehme, C. C., Nabeta, P., Hillemann, D., Nicol, M. P., Shenai, S., Krapp, F., Allen, J., Tahirli, R., Blakemore, R., Rustomjee, R., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0907847 · Cited by 2,309
Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK)
McShane, L. M., Altman, D. G., Sauerbrei, W., Taube, S. E., Gion, M., & Clark, G. M. (2005) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/dji237 · Cited by 2,162
Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Simera, I., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · Cited by 1,437
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- 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., & for the STARD Group
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-01-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-6
- ISSN
- 0009-9147
- 1530-8561
- OpenAlex
- W2097220938
- Cited by
- 862
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 50.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/49.1.1
- The paper
- 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., & for the STARD Group. (2003). Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/49.1.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.