Cargando…

Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether making the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) mandatory by the leading journal ‘Radiology’ in 2016 improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS: A validated search term was used to identify diagnostic accuracy studies p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stahl, Ann-Christine, Tietz, Anne-Sophie, Dewey, Marc, Kendziora, Benjamin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10184623/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37184759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01432-7
_version_ 1785042182296567808
author Stahl, Ann-Christine
Tietz, Anne-Sophie
Dewey, Marc
Kendziora, Benjamin
author_facet Stahl, Ann-Christine
Tietz, Anne-Sophie
Dewey, Marc
Kendziora, Benjamin
author_sort Stahl, Ann-Christine
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether making the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) mandatory by the leading journal ‘Radiology’ in 2016 improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS: A validated search term was used to identify diagnostic accuracy studies published in Radiology in 2015 and 2019. STARD adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Each item was scored as yes (1 point) if adequately reported or as no (0 points) if not. The total STARD score per article was calculated. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests were used to evaluate differences of the total STARD scores between 2015 and 2019. In addition, the total STARD score was compared between studies stratified by study design, citation rate, and data collection. RESULTS: The median number of reported STARD items for the total of 66 diagnostic accuracy studies from 2015 to 2019 was 18.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 17.5–20.0) of 29. Adherence to the STARD checklist significantly improved the STARD score from a median of 18.0 (IQR 15.5–19.5) in 2015 to a median of 19.5 (IQR 18.5–21.5) in 2019 (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studies stratified by mode of data collection (prospective vs. retrospective studies, p = 0.68), study design (cohort vs. case–control studies, p = 0.81), and citation rate (two groups divided by median split [< 0.56 citations/month vs. ≥ 0.56 citations/month], p = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Making use of the STARD checklist mandatory significantly increased the adherence with reporting standards for diagnostic accuracy studies and should be considered by editors and publishers for widespread implementation. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Editors may consider making reporting guidelines mandatory to improve the scientific quality. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-023-01432-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10184623
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101846232023-05-16 Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy? Stahl, Ann-Christine Tietz, Anne-Sophie Dewey, Marc Kendziora, Benjamin Insights Imaging Original Article OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether making the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) mandatory by the leading journal ‘Radiology’ in 2016 improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS: A validated search term was used to identify diagnostic accuracy studies published in Radiology in 2015 and 2019. STARD adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Each item was scored as yes (1 point) if adequately reported or as no (0 points) if not. The total STARD score per article was calculated. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests were used to evaluate differences of the total STARD scores between 2015 and 2019. In addition, the total STARD score was compared between studies stratified by study design, citation rate, and data collection. RESULTS: The median number of reported STARD items for the total of 66 diagnostic accuracy studies from 2015 to 2019 was 18.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 17.5–20.0) of 29. Adherence to the STARD checklist significantly improved the STARD score from a median of 18.0 (IQR 15.5–19.5) in 2015 to a median of 19.5 (IQR 18.5–21.5) in 2019 (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studies stratified by mode of data collection (prospective vs. retrospective studies, p = 0.68), study design (cohort vs. case–control studies, p = 0.81), and citation rate (two groups divided by median split [< 0.56 citations/month vs. ≥ 0.56 citations/month], p = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Making use of the STARD checklist mandatory significantly increased the adherence with reporting standards for diagnostic accuracy studies and should be considered by editors and publishers for widespread implementation. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Editors may consider making reporting guidelines mandatory to improve the scientific quality. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-023-01432-7. Springer Vienna 2023-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10184623/ /pubmed/37184759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01432-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Stahl, Ann-Christine
Tietz, Anne-Sophie
Dewey, Marc
Kendziora, Benjamin
Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?
title Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?
title_full Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?
title_fullStr Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?
title_full_unstemmed Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?
title_short Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?
title_sort has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10184623/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37184759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01432-7
work_keys_str_mv AT stahlannchristine hasthequalityofreportingimprovedsinceitbecamemandatorytousethestandardsforreportingdiagnosticaccuracy
AT tietzannesophie hasthequalityofreportingimprovedsinceitbecamemandatorytousethestandardsforreportingdiagnosticaccuracy
AT deweymarc hasthequalityofreportingimprovedsinceitbecamemandatorytousethestandardsforreportingdiagnosticaccuracy
AT kendziorabenjamin hasthequalityofreportingimprovedsinceitbecamemandatorytousethestandardsforreportingdiagnosticaccuracy