Cargando…
Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement
OBJECTIVES: Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9976600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36047034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1939 |
_version_ | 1784899120483270656 |
---|---|
author | Nassar, Elsa‐Lynn Levis, Brooke Neyer, Marieke A. Rice, Danielle B. Booij, Linda Benedetti, Andrea Thombs, Brett D. |
author_facet | Nassar, Elsa‐Lynn Levis, Brooke Neyer, Marieke A. Rice, Danielle B. Booij, Linda Benedetti, Andrea Thombs, Brett D. |
author_sort | Nassar, Elsa‐Lynn |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies. RESULTS: 106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub‐items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1, SD = 2.5; median = 10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut‐offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol. CONCLUSION: Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9976600 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99766002023-03-02 Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement Nassar, Elsa‐Lynn Levis, Brooke Neyer, Marieke A. Rice, Danielle B. Booij, Linda Benedetti, Andrea Thombs, Brett D. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Original Articles OBJECTIVES: Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies. RESULTS: 106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub‐items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1, SD = 2.5; median = 10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut‐offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol. CONCLUSION: Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9976600/ /pubmed/36047034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1939 Text en © 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Nassar, Elsa‐Lynn Levis, Brooke Neyer, Marieke A. Rice, Danielle B. Booij, Linda Benedetti, Andrea Thombs, Brett D. Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement |
title | Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement |
title_full | Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement |
title_fullStr | Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement |
title_full_unstemmed | Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement |
title_short | Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement |
title_sort | transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: a meta‐research review of adherence to the standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies statement |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9976600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36047034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1939 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nassarelsalynn transparencyandcompletenessofreportingofdepressionscreeningtoolaccuracystudiesametaresearchreviewofadherencetothestandardsforreportingofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesstatement AT levisbrooke transparencyandcompletenessofreportingofdepressionscreeningtoolaccuracystudiesametaresearchreviewofadherencetothestandardsforreportingofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesstatement AT neyermariekea transparencyandcompletenessofreportingofdepressionscreeningtoolaccuracystudiesametaresearchreviewofadherencetothestandardsforreportingofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesstatement AT ricedanielleb transparencyandcompletenessofreportingofdepressionscreeningtoolaccuracystudiesametaresearchreviewofadherencetothestandardsforreportingofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesstatement AT booijlinda transparencyandcompletenessofreportingofdepressionscreeningtoolaccuracystudiesametaresearchreviewofadherencetothestandardsforreportingofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesstatement AT benedettiandrea transparencyandcompletenessofreportingofdepressionscreeningtoolaccuracystudiesametaresearchreviewofadherencetothestandardsforreportingofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesstatement AT thombsbrettd transparencyandcompletenessofreportingofdepressionscreeningtoolaccuracystudiesametaresearchreviewofadherencetothestandardsforreportingofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesstatement |