BackgroundAncillary diagnostic tests are frequent in dermatopathology practice. Publications on their accuracy influence their utilization. The transparency and completeness of these publications are unknown.MethodsWe performed a cross‐sectional study on diagnostic accuracy studies in dermatopathology published between 2020 and 2022 for compliance with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS‐2).Results14.67 ± 3.02 STARD items were reported in 62 publications (range, 9.5–23.5 out of the recommended total of 30). More items were reported in high‐impact factor journals (16.01 vs. 13.32, p = 0.0002) and journals that endorsed STARD in their author instructions (17.22 vs. 14.11, p = 0.0039). Less than 10% of publications reported quantifiable hypotheses, sample size calculations, flow diagrams, or study registrations. The risk of bias by our analysis of QUADAS‐2 criteria was high or uncertain for index test interpretation (36/62, 58%) and patient selection (44/62, 71%).ConclusionsPublications on dermatopathology tests are exploratory studies without prespecified hypotheses or study designs. They do not meet the criteria for transparent reporting. We suggest that medical journal leadership should consider updating their instructions with more explicit guidance on recommended manuscript elements.