Cargando…

STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma

AIM: To investigate the reproducibility of the updated Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (STARD 2015) in a set of 106 studies included in a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review of imaging tests for diagnosing manifest glaucoma. METHODS: One senior r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Virgili, Gianni, Michelessi, Manuele, Miele, Alba, Oddone, Francesco, Crescioli, Giada, Fameli, Valeria, Lucenteforte, Ersilia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29023557
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186209
_version_ 1783270726623559680
author Virgili, Gianni
Michelessi, Manuele
Miele, Alba
Oddone, Francesco
Crescioli, Giada
Fameli, Valeria
Lucenteforte, Ersilia
author_facet Virgili, Gianni
Michelessi, Manuele
Miele, Alba
Oddone, Francesco
Crescioli, Giada
Fameli, Valeria
Lucenteforte, Ersilia
author_sort Virgili, Gianni
collection PubMed
description AIM: To investigate the reproducibility of the updated Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (STARD 2015) in a set of 106 studies included in a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review of imaging tests for diagnosing manifest glaucoma. METHODS: One senior rater with DTA methodological and clinical expertise used STARD 2015 on all studies, and each of three raters with different training profiles assessed about a third of the studies. RESULTS: Raw agreement was very good or almost perfect between the senior rater and an ophthalmology resident with DTA methods training, acceptable with a clinical rater with little DTA methods training, and only moderate with a pharmacology researcher with general, but not DTA, systematic review training and no clinical expertise. The relationship between adherence with STARD 2015 and methodological quality with QUADAS 2 was only partial and difficult to investigate, suggesting that raters used substantial context knowledge in risk of bias assessment. CONCLUSIONS: STARD 2015 proved to be reproducible in this specific research field, provided that both clinical and DTA methodological expertise are achieved through training of its users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5638332
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56383322017-10-20 STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma Virgili, Gianni Michelessi, Manuele Miele, Alba Oddone, Francesco Crescioli, Giada Fameli, Valeria Lucenteforte, Ersilia PLoS One Research Article AIM: To investigate the reproducibility of the updated Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (STARD 2015) in a set of 106 studies included in a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review of imaging tests for diagnosing manifest glaucoma. METHODS: One senior rater with DTA methodological and clinical expertise used STARD 2015 on all studies, and each of three raters with different training profiles assessed about a third of the studies. RESULTS: Raw agreement was very good or almost perfect between the senior rater and an ophthalmology resident with DTA methods training, acceptable with a clinical rater with little DTA methods training, and only moderate with a pharmacology researcher with general, but not DTA, systematic review training and no clinical expertise. The relationship between adherence with STARD 2015 and methodological quality with QUADAS 2 was only partial and difficult to investigate, suggesting that raters used substantial context knowledge in risk of bias assessment. CONCLUSIONS: STARD 2015 proved to be reproducible in this specific research field, provided that both clinical and DTA methodological expertise are achieved through training of its users. Public Library of Science 2017-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5638332/ /pubmed/29023557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186209 Text en © 2017 Virgili et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Virgili, Gianni
Michelessi, Manuele
Miele, Alba
Oddone, Francesco
Crescioli, Giada
Fameli, Valeria
Lucenteforte, Ersilia
STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma
title STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma
title_full STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma
title_fullStr STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma
title_full_unstemmed STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma
title_short STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma
title_sort stard 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29023557
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186209
work_keys_str_mv AT virgiligianni stard2015wasreproducibleinalargesetofstudiesonglaucoma
AT michelessimanuele stard2015wasreproducibleinalargesetofstudiesonglaucoma
AT mielealba stard2015wasreproducibleinalargesetofstudiesonglaucoma
AT oddonefrancesco stard2015wasreproducibleinalargesetofstudiesonglaucoma
AT crescioligiada stard2015wasreproducibleinalargesetofstudiesonglaucoma
AT famelivaleria stard2015wasreproducibleinalargesetofstudiesonglaucoma
AT lucenteforteersilia stard2015wasreproducibleinalargesetofstudiesonglaucoma