Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether encouraging authors to follow the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines improves the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS: In mid-2017, European Radiology started encouraging its authors to follow the STARD guidelines. Our MEDLINE search identified 114 diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology in 2015 and 2019. The quality of reporting was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the revised STARD statement. Item 11 was excluded because a meaningful decision about adherence was not possible. Student’s t test for independent samples was used to analyze differences in the mean number of reported STARD items between studies published in 2015 and in 2019. In addition, we calculated differences related to the study design, data collection, and citation rate. RESULTS: The mean total number of reported STARD items for all 114 diagnostic accuracy studies analyzed was 15.9 ± 2.6 (54.8%) of 29 items (range 9.5–22.5). The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was significantly better in 2019 (mean ± standard deviation (SD), 16.3 ± 2.7) than in 2015 (mean ± SD, 15.1 ± 2.3; p < 0.02). No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies according to the STARD statement was moderate with a slight improvement since European Radiology started to recommend its authors to follow the STARD guidelines. KEY POINTS: • The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate with a mean total number of reported STARD items of 15.9 ± 2.6. • The adherence to STARD was significantly better in 2019 than in 2015 (16.3 ± 2.7 vs. 15.1 ± 2.3; p = 0.016). • No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-09008-7.