"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
Previous
Next
Special Reports

Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative

Published Online:Jan 1 2003https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2261021292

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability.

METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering group searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS: The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, using evidence, whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both.

CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

© RSNA, 2003

References

  • 1 Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, Haynes RB, Drummond M. A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. Can Med Assoc J 1986; 134:587-594.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11:88-94.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kent DL, Larson EB. Disease, level of impact, and quality of research methods: three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1992; 27:245-254.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AI, Greenland P. Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures: principles and applications. Ann Intern Med 1981; 94:557-592.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. The selection of diagnostic tests. In: Sackett D, eds. Clinical epimediology. 2nd ed. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown, 1991; 47-57.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978; 8:283-298.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995; 274:645-651.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nelemans PJ, Leiner T, de Vet HCW, van Engelshoven JMA. Peripheral arterial disease: meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of MR angiography. Radiology 2000; 217:105-114.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Devries SO, Hunink MGM, Polak JF. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves as a technique for meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of duplex ultrasonography in peripheral arterial disease. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:361-369.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999; 282:1061-1066.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276:637-639.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001; 285:1987-1991.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001; 285:1992-1995.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 1997; 277:927-934. [Also available at: www.acponline.org].
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003; 49:7-18.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Egger M, Jüni , Barlett C. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2001; 285:1996-1999.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Knottnerus JA. The effects of disease verification and referral on the relationship between symptoms and diseases. Med Decis Making 1987; 7:139-148.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Panzer RJ, Suchman AL, Griner PF. Workup bias in prediction research. Med Decis Making 1987; 7:115-119.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987; 6:411-423.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Jan 2003