HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wilczynski, N. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Wilczynski, N. L. Related Collections Related Article

Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: No Change Since STARD Statement Publication—Before-and-after Study¹

¹ From the Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University, 1200 Main St West, HSC-3H7, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 3Z5. Received November 28, 2007; revision requested February 1, 2008; revision received February 8; accepted April 1; final version accepted April 10. Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: wilczyn{at}mcmaster.ca).

Purpose: To determine the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies before and after the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement publication and to determine whether there is a difference in the quality of reporting by comparing STARD (endorsing) and non-STARD (nonendorsing) journals.

Materials and Methods: Diagnostic accuracy studies were identified by hand searching six STARD and six non-STARD journals for 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005. Diagnostic accuracy studies (n = 240) were assessed by using a checklist of 13 of 25 STARD items. The change in the mean total score on the modified STARD checklist was evaluated with analysis of covariance. The change in proportion of times that each individual STARD item was reported before and after STARD statement publication was evaluated (² tests for linear trend).

Results: With mean total score as dependent factor, analysis of covariance showed that the interaction between the two independent factors (STARD or non-STARD journal and year of publication) was not significant (F = 0.664, df = 3, partial ² = 0.009, P = .58). Additionally, the frequency with which individual items on the STARD checklist were reported before and after STARD statement publication has remained relatively constant, with little difference between STARD and non-STARD journals.

Conclusion: After publication of the STARD statement in 2003, the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies remained similar to pre–STARD statement publication levels, and there was no meaningful difference (ie, one additional item on the checklist of 13 of 25 STARD items being reported) in the quality of reporting between those journals that published the STARD statement and those that did not.

© RSNA, 2008

Related Article

STARD Statement: Still Room for Improvement in the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
Radiology 2008 248: 713-714. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. M. M. Bossuyt STARD Statement: Still Room for Improvement in the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Radiology, September 1, 2008; 248(3): 713 - 714. [Full Text] [PDF]