Evaluation of Diagnostic Strategies for Identifying SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Clinical Practice: a Systematic Review and Compliance with the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Guideline (STARD)

Cremades-Martínez, Paula; Parker, Lucy; Chilet-Rosell, Elisa; Lumbreras, Blanca

doi:10.1128/spectrum.00300-22

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More items were reported in high‐impact factor journals and journals which recommended STARD reporting in their author guidelines. This is consistent with prior research demonstrating STARD compliance ranges from 34% to 56% across different scientific fields 17–22 . Studies on diagnostic accuracy tests in dermatopathology tend to be exploratory, demonstrate risk of bias in case selection and index test performance, and do not report methods, results, or study limitations transparently.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Publications on the diagnostic accuracy of dermatopathology tests: A cross‐sectional quality analysis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Publications on the diagnostic accuracy of dermatopathology tests: A cross‐sectional quality analysis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For other significant factors in model 4, they were either unstable or only partially reflected the patient's physical condition. In addition, the most frequently reported predictors of prognosis in COVID-19 patients were age, symptoms, comorbidities, and features derived from CT ( 15 , 16 , 37 – 40 ). A high proportion of severe cases and high mortality were observed in elderly COVID-19 patients ( 41 , 42 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some factors have been reported to be able to indicate the prognosis of patients, such as various routine laboratory parameters, cytokines, and features of lung computed tomography (CT) scans ( 11 – 16 ); great prediction models based on these factors have been developed, like the ISARIC score ( 17 ). However, these models are complicated, depend on additional clinical tests, and require further calculations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prognostic value of the Barthel Index for mortality in patients with COVID-19: A cross-sectional study

Wang

Liu

Wang

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze the association between the activity of daily living (ADL), coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and the value of the Barthel Index in predicting the prognosis of patients.MethodsThis study included 398 patients with COVID-19, whose ADL at admission to hospital were assessed with the Barthel Index. The relationship between the index and the mortality risk of the patients was analyzed. Several regression models and a decision tree were established to evaluate the prognostic value of the index in COVID-19 patients.ResultsThe Barthel Index scores of deceased patients were significantly lower than that of discharged patients (median: 65 vs. 90, P < 0.001), and its decrease indicated an increased risk of mortality in patients (P < 0.001). After adjusting models for age, gender, temperature, pulse, respiratory rate, mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, etc., the Barthel Index could still independently predict prognosis (OR = 0.809; 95% CI: 0.750–0.872). The decision tree showed that patients with a Barthel Index of below 70 had a higher mortality rate (33.3–40.0%), while those above 90 were usually discharged (mortality: 2.7–7.2%).ConclusionThe Barthel Index is of prognostic value for mortality in COVID-19 patients. According to their Barthel Index, COVID-19 patients can be divided into emergency, observation, and normal groups (0–70; 70–90; 90–100), with different treatment strategies.

show abstract

Evaluation of Diagnostic Strategies for Identifying SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Clinical Practice: a Systematic Review and Compliance with the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Guideline (STARD)

Cited by 2 publications

References 51 publications

Publications on the diagnostic accuracy of dermatopathology tests: A cross‐sectional quality analysis

Publications on the diagnostic accuracy of dermatopathology tests: A cross‐sectional quality analysis

The prognostic value of the Barthel Index for mortality in patients with COVID-19: A cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About