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.
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.
Authors: David Elashoff; Hui Zhou; Jean Reiss; Jianghua Wang; Hua Xiao; Bradley Henson; Shen Hu; Martha Arellano; Uttam Sinha; Anh Le; Diana Messadi; Marilene Wang; Vishad Nabili; Mark Lingen; Darly Morris; Timothy Randolph; Ziding Feng; David Akin; Dragana A Kastratovic; David Chia; Elliot Abemayor; David T W Wong Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: N Mattsson; E Rosén; O Hansson; N Andreasen; L Parnetti; M Jonsson; S-K Herukka; W M van der Flier; M A Blankenstein; M Ewers; K Rich; E Kaiser; M M Verbeek; M Olde Rikkert; M Tsolaki; E Mulugeta; D Aarsland; P J Visser; J Schröder; J Marcusson; M de Leon; H Hampel; P Scheltens; A Wallin; M Eriksdotter-Jönhagen; L Minthon; B Winblad; K Blennow; H Zetterberg Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Peter J Goebell; Ashish M Kamat; Richard J Sylvester; Peter Black; Michael Droller; Guilherme Godoy; M'Liss A Hudson; Kerstin Junker; Wassim Kassouf; Margaret A Knowles; Wolfgang A Schulz; Roland Seiler; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Faina Linkov; Robert L Ferris; Zoya Yurkovetsky; Adele Marrangoni; Lyudmila Velikokhatnaya; William Gooding; Brian Nolan; Matthew Winans; Eric R Siegel; Anna Lokshin; Brendan C Stack Journal: Proteomics Clin Appl Date: 2008-10-10 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Stephen J Phillips; Dingwei Dai; Arnold Mitnitski; Gordon J Gubitz; Karen C Johnston; Walter J Koroshetz; Karen L Furie; Sandra Black; Darell E Heiselman Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Alka B Patel; Hude Quan; Robert C Welsh; Jessica Deckert-Sookram; Wayne Tymchak; Sunil Sookram; Ian Surdhar; Padma Kaul Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2015-10-02