PURPOSE: To evaluate methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies of perimetry in glaucoma and to determine whether there had been any improvement since the publication of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines. METHODS: A systematic review of English language articles published between 1993 and 2013 reporting the diagnostic accuracy of perimetry in glaucoma. Articles were appraised for methodological quality using the 14-item Quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) and evaluated for quality of reporting by applying the STARD checklist. RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles were appraised. Overall methodological quality of these studies was moderate with a median number of QUADAS items rated as 'yes' equal to nine (out of a maximum of 14) (IQR 7-10). The studies were often poorly reported; median score of STARD items fully reported was 11 out of 25 (IQR 10-14). A comparison of the studies published in 10-year periods before and after the publication of the STARD checklist in 2003 found quality of reporting had not substantially improved. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies of perimetry is sub-optimal and appears not to have improved substantially following the development of the STARD reporting guidance. This observation is consistent with previous studies in ophthalmology and in other medical specialities.
PURPOSE: To evaluate methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies of perimetry in glaucoma and to determine whether there had been any improvement since the publication of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines. METHODS: A systematic review of English language articles published between 1993 and 2013 reporting the diagnostic accuracy of perimetry in glaucoma. Articles were appraised for methodological quality using the 14-item Quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) and evaluated for quality of reporting by applying the STARD checklist. RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles were appraised. Overall methodological quality of these studies was moderate with a median number of QUADAS items rated as 'yes' equal to nine (out of a maximum of 14) (IQR 7-10). The studies were often poorly reported; median score of STARD items fully reported was 11 out of 25 (IQR 10-14). A comparison of the studies published in 10-year periods before and after the publication of the STARD checklist in 2003 found quality of reporting had not substantially improved. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies of perimetry is sub-optimal and appears not to have improved substantially following the development of the STARD reporting guidance. This observation is consistent with previous studies in ophthalmology and in other medical specialities.
Keywords:
glaucoma; methodological quality; perimetry; quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy; standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies