Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 862

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

Bossuyt, Patrick M, Reitsma, Johannes B, Bruns, David E, Gatsonis, Constantine A, Glasziou, Paul P, Irwig, Les M, Lijmer, Jeroen G, Moher, David, Rennie, Drummond, de Vet, Henrica C W, for the STARD Group·2003·Clinical Chemistry

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/49.1.1

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. 1986, Can Med Assoc J, 134, 587
  2. 1991, Med Decis Making, 11, 88, 10.1177/0272989X9101100203 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 1992, Invest Radiol, 27, 245, 10.1097/00004424-199203000-00014 · DOI
  4. 1981, Ann Intern Med, 94, 557
  5. 1991, Clinical epidemiology, 2nd ed, 47
  6. 1978, Semin Nucl Med, 8, 283, 10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 1995, JAMA, 274, 645, 10.1001/jama.1995.03530080061042 · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530080061042
  8. 2000, Radiology, 217, 105, 10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc11105 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 1996, Acad Radiol, 3, 361, 10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80257-1 · DOI
  10. 2001, JAMA, 285, 1992, 10.1001/jama.285.15.1992 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 1997, JAMA, 277, 927, 10.1001/jama.1997.03540350077040 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 2003, Clin Chem, 49, 7, 10.1373/49.1.7 · doi:10.1373/49.1.7 · Paper page
  13. 2001, JAMA, 285, 1996, 10.1001/jama.285.15.1996 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 1987, Med Decis Making, 7, 139, 10.1177/0272989X8700700304 · DOI
  15. 1987, Med Decis Making, 7, 115, 10.1177/0272989X8700700209 · DOI
  16. 1987, Stat Med, 6, 411, 10.1002/sim.4780060402 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 862

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
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.