PURPOSE: To evaluate adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies in imaging journals to the STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015. The secondary objective was to identify differences in reporting for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE was searched for diagnostic accuracy studies published in imaging journals in 2016. Studies were evaluated for adherence to STARD 2015 (30 items, including expanded imaging specific subitems). Evaluation for differences in STARD adherence based on modality, impact factor, journal STARD adoption, country, subspecialty area, study design, and journal was performed. RESULTS: Adherence (n = 142 studies) was 55% (16.6/30 items, SD = 2.2). Index test description (including imaging-specific subitems) and interpretation were frequently reported (>66% of studies); no important differences in reporting of individual items were identified for studies on MRI. Infrequently reported items (<33% of studies) included some critical to generalizability (study setting and location) and assessment of bias (blinding of assessor of reference standard). New STARD 2015 items: sample size calculation, protocol reporting, and registration were infrequently reported. Higher impact factor (IF) journals reported more items than lower IF journals (17.2 vs. 16 items; P = 0.001). STARD adopter journals reported more items than nonadopters (17.5 vs. 16.4 items; P = 0.01). Adherence varied between journals (P = 0.003). No variability for study design (P = 0.32), subspecialty area (P = 0.75), country (P = 0.28), or imaging modality (P = 0.80) was identified. CONCLUSION: Imaging accuracy studies show moderate adherence to STARD 2015, with only minor differences for studies evaluating MRI. This baseline evaluation will guide targeted interventions towards identified deficiencies and help track progress in reporting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:523-544.
PURPOSE: To evaluate adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies in imaging journals to the STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015. The secondary objective was to identify differences in reporting for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE was searched for diagnostic accuracy studies published in imaging journals in 2016. Studies were evaluated for adherence to STARD 2015 (30 items, including expanded imaging specific subitems). Evaluation for differences in STARD adherence based on modality, impact factor, journal STARD adoption, country, subspecialty area, study design, and journal was performed. RESULTS: Adherence (n = 142 studies) was 55% (16.6/30 items, SD = 2.2). Index test description (including imaging-specific subitems) and interpretation were frequently reported (>66% of studies); no important differences in reporting of individual items were identified for studies on MRI. Infrequently reported items (<33% of studies) included some critical to generalizability (study setting and location) and assessment of bias (blinding of assessor of reference standard). New STARD 2015 items: sample size calculation, protocol reporting, and registration were infrequently reported. Higher impact factor (IF) journals reported more items than lower IF journals (17.2 vs. 16 items; P = 0.001). STARD adopter journals reported more items than nonadopters (17.5 vs. 16.4 items; P = 0.01). Adherence varied between journals (P = 0.003). No variability for study design (P = 0.32), subspecialty area (P = 0.75), country (P = 0.28), or imaging modality (P = 0.80) was identified. CONCLUSION: Imaging accuracy studies show moderate adherence to STARD 2015, with only minor differences for studies evaluating MRI. This baseline evaluation will guide targeted interventions towards identified deficiencies and help track progress in reporting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:523-544.
Authors: Sanam Ebrahimzadeh; Nayaar Islam; Haben Dawit; Jean-Paul Salameh; Sakib Kazi; Nicholas Fabiano; Lee Treanor; Marissa Absi; Faraz Ahmad; Paul Rooprai; Ahmed Al Khalil; Kelly Harper; Neil Kamra; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Lotty Hooft; Christian B van der Pol; Ross Prager; Samanjit S Hare; Carole Dennie; René Spijker; Jonathan J Deeks; Jacqueline Dinnes; Kevin Jenniskens; Daniël A Korevaar; Jérémie F Cohen; Ann Van den Bruel; Yemisi Takwoingi; Janneke van de Wijgert; Junfeng Wang; Elena Pena; Sandra Sabongui; Matthew Df McInnes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-05-16
Authors: Susmita Chennareddy; Roshini Kalagara; Colton Smith; Stavros Matsoukas; Abhiraj Bhimani; John Liang; Steven Shapiro; Reade De Leacy; Maxim Mokin; Johanna T Fifi; J Mocco; Christopher P Kellner Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Kyunghwa Han; Yu Sub Sung; Mi Sun Chung; Hyun Jung Koo; Hee Mang Yoon; Young Jun Choi; Seung Soo Lee; Kyung Won Kim; Youngbin Shin; Suah An; Hyo-Min Cho; Seong Ho Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Nayaar Islam; Sanam Ebrahimzadeh; Jean-Paul Salameh; Sakib Kazi; Nicholas Fabiano; Lee Treanor; Marissa Absi; Zachary Hallgrimson; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Lotty Hooft; Christian B van der Pol; Ross Prager; Samanjit S Hare; Carole Dennie; René Spijker; Jonathan J Deeks; Jacqueline Dinnes; Kevin Jenniskens; Daniël A Korevaar; Jérémie F Cohen; Ann Van den Bruel; Yemisi Takwoingi; Janneke van de Wijgert; Johanna Aag Damen; Junfeng Wang; Matthew Df McInnes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-03-16
Authors: Fei-Fei Zheng; Wei-Hong Shen; Fang Gong; Zhi-De Hu; Giuseppe Lippi; Ana-Maria Šimundić; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Mario Plebani; Kaiping Zhang Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-06