| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Reports |
1 From the Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands (N.S., D.A.W.M.v.d.W., R.W.J.G.O., L.M.B., H.C.W.d.V.); and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (A.W.S.R., J.B.R., P.M.B.). Received March 12, 2004; revision requested May 21; revision received August 19; accepted October 1. Supported by grants from the Medical Sciences–Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (ZON-MW). Address correspondence to N.S. (e-mail: n.smidt@vumc.nl).
PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 in journals with impact factor of at least 4 by using items of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement published later in 2003.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: English-language articles on primary diagnostic accuracy studies in 2000 were identified with validated search strategy in MEDLINE. Articles published in journals with impact factor of 4 or higher that regularly publish articles on diagnostic accuracy were selected. Two independent reviewers evaluated quality of reporting by using STARD statement, which consists of 25 items and encourages use of a flow diagram. Total STARD score for each article was calculated by summing number of reported items. Subgroup analyses were performed for study design (case-control or cohort study) by using Student t tests for continuous outcomes and 
2 tests for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS: Included were 124 articles published in 2000 in 12 journals: 33 case-control and 91 cohort studies. Only 41% of articles (51 of 124) reported on more than 50% of STARD items, while no articles reported on more than 80%. A flow chart was presented in two articles. Assessment of reporting on individual items of STARD statement revealed wide variation, with some items described in 11% of articles and others in 92%. Mean STARD score (0–25 points available) was 11.9 (range, 3.5–19.5). Mean difference in STARD score between cohort studies and case-control studies was 1.53 (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.82).
CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 is less than optimal, even in journals with high impact factor. Authors, editors, and reviewers should pay more attention to reporting by checking STARD statement items and including a flow diagram to represent study design and patient flow.
Supplemental material: radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2352040507/DC1
© RSNA, 2005
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. L. Wilczynski Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: No Change Since STARD Statement Publication--Before-and-after Study Radiology, September 1, 2008; 248(3): 817 - 823. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Smidt, J. Overbeke, H. de Vet, and P. Bossuyt Endorsement of the STARD Statement by Biomedical Journals: Survey of Instructions for Authors Clin. Chem., November 1, 2007; 53(11): 1983 - 1985. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Raymond and I. Trop The Practice of Ethics in the Era of Evidence-based Radiology Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 643 - 649. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Hollingworth and J. G. Jarvik Technology Assessment in Radiology: Putting the Evidence in Evidence-based Radiology Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 31 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. J. R. van Beek and D. E. Malone Evidence-based Practice in Radiology Education: Why and How Should We Teach It? Radiology, June 1, 2007; 243(3): 633 - 640. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Dodd Evidence-based Practice in Radiology: Steps 3 and 4--Appraise and Apply Diagnostic Radiology Literature Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 342 - 354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Leeflang, J. Reitsma, R. Scholten, A. Rutjes, M. Di Nisio, J. Deeks, and P. Bossuyt Impact of Adjustment for Quality on Results of Metaanalyses of Diagnostic Accuracy Clin. Chem., February 1, 2007; 53(2): 164 - 172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Roposch, N. M. Moreau, E. Uleryk, and A. S. Doria Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy for US Radiology, December 1, 2006; 241(3): 854 - 860. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Smidt, A.W.S. Rutjes, D. A.W.M. van der Windt, R. W.J.G. Ostelo, P. M. Bossuyt, J. B. Reitsma, L. M. Bouter, and H. C.W. de Vet The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology, September 12, 2006; 67(5): 792 - 797. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Mallett, J. J Deeks, S. Halligan, S. Hopewell, V. Cornelius, and D. G Altman Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting BMJ, August 26, 2006; 333(7565): 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Shunmugam and A. Azuara-Blanco The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using the heidelberg retina tomograph. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2006; 47(6): 2317 - 2323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. FitzGerald Performance-Based Assessment of Radiology Faculty Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 265 - 265. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. W.S. Rutjes, J. B. Reitsma, J. P. Vandenbroucke, A. S. Glas, and P. M.M. Bossuyt Case-Control and Two-Gate Designs in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Clin. Chem., August 1, 2005; 51(8): 1335 - 1341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
