Cited by 985Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Open access
Bossuyt, Patrick M, Reitsma, Johannes B, Bruns, David E, Gatsonis, Constantine A, Glasziou, Paul P, Irwig, Les, Lijmer, Jeroen G, Moher, David +9 more·2015·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

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/clinchem.2015.246280

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J. De- signing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ 2002;324:669 -71.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
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., Kressel, H. Y., Rifai, N., Golub, R. M., Altman, D. G., Hooft, L., Korevaar, D. A., & Cohen, J. F.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • OLVG (NL)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Bossuyt, Patrick M
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2015-12-01
Volume
61
Issue
12
Pages
1446-1452
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2188214922
Cited by
984
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 124 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 134 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 96 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 2
FWCI
58.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
University of Amsterdam
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
STARD 2015, diagnostic accuracy studies, reporting guidelines, reporting completeness, research transparency, critical appraisal
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Quality Control, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Bias

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