CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,124Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration

Bossuyt, Patrick M., Reitsma, Johannes B., Bruns, David E., Gatsonis, Constantine A., Glasziou, Paul P., Irwig, Les M., Moher, David, Rennie, Drummond, de Vet, Henrica C.W., Lijmer, Jeroen G.·2003·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalizability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding, and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale, and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart, and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in health care.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Guyatt GH, 1986, CMAJ, 134, 587
  2. 10.1001/jama.1994.03510290071040 · DOI
  3. 10.1001/jama.1994.03510330081039 · DOI
  4. 10.1001/jama.1984.03350170020012 · DOI
  5. 10.1001/jama.1995.03530080061042 · DOI
  6. Griner PF, 1981, Ann Intern Med, 94, 557
  7. McKibbon KA, 1994, ACP J Club, 121, A10
  8. Wilczynski NL, 2001, Medinfo, 10, 390
  9. Mol BW, 1999, Obstet Gynecol, 94, 864
  10. Cohen MB, 1987, Arch Pathol Lab Med, 111, 518
  11. 10.1001/jama.1982.03330190031026 · DOI
  12. Anton RF, 2001, Clin Chem, 47, 1769

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,124

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
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.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • From Academic Medical Center and VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Clinical Chemistry, Charlottesville, Virginia; Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; University of Queensland Medical School, Herston, Australia; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Thomas C. Chalmers Center for Systematic Reviews, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and Journal of the American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois.
  • American Medical Association (US)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Bossuyt, Patrick M.
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2003-01-07
Volume
138
Issue
1
Pages
W1-12
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 0003-4819
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1
OpenAlex
W1498589284
Cited by
1,124
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 97 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 89
FWCI
69.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/text-and-data-mining (tdm)
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (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 studies, reporting quality, reporting checklist, flowcharts, generalizability, applicability
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Clinical Trials as Topic, Publishing, Reference Standards, Research Design, Sensitivity and Specificity, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures

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