Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

Abstract

ObjectiveTo determine the rate with which diagnostic test accuracy studies that are published in a general radiology journal adhere to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015, and to explore the relationship between adherence rate and citation rate while avoiding confounding by journal factors.Materials and MethodsAll eligible diagnostic test accuracy studies that were published in the Korean Journal of Radiology in 2011–2015 were identified. Five reviewers assessed each article for yes/no compliance with 27 of the 30 STARD 2015 checklist items (items 28, 29, and 30 were excluded). The total STARD score (number of fulfilled STARD items) was calculated. The score of the 15 STARD items that related directly to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was also calculated. The number of times each article was cited (as indicated by the Web of Science) after publication until March 2016 and the article exposure time (time in months between publication and March 2016) were extracted.ResultsSixty-three articles were analyzed. The mean (range) total and QUADAS-2-related STARD scores were 20.0 (14.5–25) and 11.4 (7–15), respectively. The mean citation number was 4 (0–21). Citation number did not associate significantly with either STARD score after accounting for exposure time (total score: correlation coefficient = 0.154, p = 0.232; QUADAS-2-related score: correlation coefficient = 0.143, p = 0.266).ConclusionThe degree of adherence to STARD 2015 was moderate for this journal, indicating that there is room for improvement. When adjusted for exposure time, the degree of adherence did not affect the citation rate.

Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: Adherence to STARD 2015

“…18 Choi et al identified higher adherence among 63 imaging studies (74%; 20/27 items); their assessment was limited by use of a truncated STARD 2015 checklist. 19 Korevaar et al and Smidt et al also identified that descriptions of test conduct and interpretation were frequently reported. 6,11 Conversely Walther et al found that technical details regarding the index test were reported in less than 50% of the cardiac imaging studies evaluated.…”

“…Walther et al identified higher adherence in their recent evaluation of studies evaluating the accuracy of coronary CT (69%; 14.4/21 items); however, their assessment used a truncated 21‐item checklist and was specific to a single imaging test . Choi et al identified higher adherence among 63 imaging studies (74%; 20/27 items); their assessment was limited by use of a truncated STARD 2015 checklist . Korevaar et al and Smidt et al also identified that descriptions of test conduct and interpretation were frequently reported .…”

“…Dissemination of STARD led to modest improvements in the reporting of diagnostic accuracy research . Generalizability of previous evaluations of STARD adherence is limited, as past studies have not been specific to imaging, have focused on only a specific subgroup of imaging studies (eg, cardiac), or have used a partial list of STARD items …”

“…STARD adherence is limited, as past studies have not been specific to imaging, 6,11,16 have focused on only a specific subgroup of imaging studies (eg, cardiac), 17,18 or have used a partial list of STARD items. 19 The STARD group recently updated their reporting guideline. Several original items were removed or reworded, while nine additional items were added.…”

Age of Data in Contemporary Research Articles Published in Representative General Radiology Journals

“…Korean Journal of Radiology recently assessed the quality of its research articles in terms of conformity to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines (59) and the adequacy reporting reliability analysis for diagnostic tests (60). The current study revealed another area in which KJR could improve its quality and impact, and we would even suggest some specific measures.…”