Literature DB >> 31708317

Emergency Ultrasound Literature and Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Criteria.

Molly Thiessen1, Jody A Vogel1, Richard L Byyny1, Emily Hopkins2, Jason S Haukoos3, John L Kendall1, Stacy A Trent1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Given the wide usage of emergency point-of-care ultrasound (EUS) among emergency physicians (EPs), rigorous study surrounding its accuracy is essential. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria were established to ensure robust reporting methodology for diagnostic studies. Adherence to the STARD criteria among EUS diagnostic studies has yet to be reported.
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to evaluate a body of EUS literature shortly after STARD publication for its baseline adherence to the STARD criteria.
METHODS: EUS studies in 5 emergency medicine journals from 2005-2010 were evaluated for their adherence to the STARD criteria. Manuscripts were selected for inclusion if they reported original research and described the use of 1 of 10 diagnostic ultrasound modalities designated as "core emergency ultrasound applications" in the 2008 American College of Emergency Physicians Ultrasound Guidelines. Literature search identified 307 studies; of these, 45 met inclusion criteria for review.
RESULTS: The median STARD score was 15 (interquartile range [IQR] 12-17), representing 60% of the 25 total STARD criteria. The median STARD score among articles that reported diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than those that did not report accuracy (17 [IQR 15-19] vs. 11 [IQR 9-13], respectively; p < 0.0001). Seventy-one percent of articles met ≥50% of the STARD criteria (56-84%) and 4% met >80% of the STARD criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant opportunities exist to improve methodological reporting of EUS research. Increased adherence to the STARD criteria among diagnostic EUS studies will improve reporting and improve our ability to compare outcomes.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  STARD; diagnostic accuracy; emergency medicine; point-of-care ultrasound; research methodology; standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy

Year:  2019        PMID: 31708317      PMCID: PMC7202948          DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.09.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0736-4679            Impact factor:   1.484


  16 in total

1.  The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  The quality of reporting of primary test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology: application of the STARD criteria.

Authors:  Tara J Selman; R Katie Morris; Javier Zamora; Khalid S Khan
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 2.809

3.  Quality of reporting of test accuracy studies in reproductive medicine: impact of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative.

Authors:  Sjors F P J Coppus; Fulco van der Veen; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Ben W J Mol
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Nynke Smidt; Anne W S Rutjes; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M Bossuyt; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Evaluating bias and variability in diagnostic test reports.

Authors:  W R Mower
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 5.721

6.  Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: some improvements after 10 years of STARD.

Authors:  Daniël A Korevaar; Junfeng Wang; W Annefloor van Enst; Mariska M Leeflang; Lotty Hooft; Nynke Smidt; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-10-27       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Developmental dysplasia of the hip: quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy for US.

Authors:  Andreas Roposch; Nicole M Moreau; Elizabeth Uleryk; Andrea S Doria
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-10-19       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.

Authors:  M C Reid; M S Lachs; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995 Aug 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Association between compliance with methodological standards of diagnostic research and reported test accuracy: meta-analysis of focused assessment of US for trauma.

Authors:  Dirk Stengel; Kai Bauwens; Grit Rademacher; Sven Mutze; Axel Ekkernkamp
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-27       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Diagnostic accuracy research in glaucoma is still incompletely reported: An application of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015.

Authors:  Manuele Michelessi; Ersilia Lucenteforte; Alba Miele; Francesco Oddone; Giada Crescioli; Valeria Fameli; Daniël A Korevaar; Gianni Virgili
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 Guidelines in Acute Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research.

Authors:  Ross Prager; Joshua Bowdridge; Hashim Kareemi; Chris Wright; Trevor A McGrath; Matthew D F McInnes
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-05-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.