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
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
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
“By outlining a list of 30 minimum essential items that should be reported for every diagnostic test accuracy study, STARD can improve the quality of study reporting, help stakeholders judge the risk of bias and applicability of the findings and enhance research reproducibility.”
From The STARD-AI reporting guideline for diagnostic accuracy studies using artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“In response to this, the STARD statement was developed in 2003, and was subsequently updated in 2015 (STARD 2015), to standardize the reporting of diagnostic accuracy research 13,14 .”
From The STARD-AI reporting guideline for diagnostic accuracy studies using artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
Citations
Cites
Towards 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
Value of the Ventilation/Perfusion Scan in Acute Pulmonary Embolism
(1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440200057023 · Cited by 2,818
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Jaeschke, R. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.271.9.703 · Cited by 2,688
Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
Dickersin, K., Scherer, R. W., & Lefebvre, C. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286 · Cited by 2,255
Empirical 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-citationProblems of Spectrum and Bias in Evaluating the Efficacy of Diagnostic Tests
Ransohoff, D. F., & Feinstein, A. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197810262991705 · Cited by 1,739
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Jaeschke, R. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.271.5.389 · Cited by 1,174
Assessing the Generalizability of Prognostic Information
Justice, A. C., Covinsky, K. E., & Berlin, J. A. (1999) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00016 · Cited by 1,160
A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses
Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-116-1-78 · Cited by 914
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Guyatt GH, 1986, CMAJ, 134, 587
- 10.1001/jama.1994.03510290071040 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1994.03510330081039 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1984.03350170020012 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1995.03530080061042 · DOI
- Griner PF, 1981, Ann Intern Med, 94, 557
- McKibbon KA, 1994, ACP J Club, 121, A10
- Wilczynski NL, 2001, Medinfo, 10, 390
- Mol BW, 1999, Obstet Gynecol, 94, 864
- Cohen MB, 1987, Arch Pathol Lab Med, 111, 518
- 10.1001/jama.1982.03330190031026 · DOI
- Anton RF, 2001, Clin Chem, 47, 1769
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Self-citationPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
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
- 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
- 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
