The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalizability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding, and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale, and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart, and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in health care.

Diagnostic accuracy of tumor markers for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review

“…Study design features significantly affect the entire results of a study on diagnostic tests [89][90][91]. In a casecontrol study, to prevent the possibility of selection bias, patients should be recruited consecutively from a relevant clinical population covering the spectrum of disease that is likely to be encountered in the current or future use of the test.…”

Comparison of pressure plate and force plate gait kinetics in sound Warmbloods at walk and trot

“…agreement between repeated measurements) and accuracy (i.e. agreement with reference standard) is necessary (Bossuyt et al, 2003).…”

Improving the reporting and usability of research studies

“…16 In the years since CONSORT was first published, over 200 other reporting guidelines (many also containing checklists) have emerged for reporting different study designs and types of data, along with an overarching initiative aimed at Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Research -the EQUA-TOR Network (www.equator-network.org). According to metrics tracked by Google Scholar, CONSORT 2010 and a few other guidelines, namely, STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies), 17,18 STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies), 19,20 and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), 21,22 are among the top-cited content in the journals that publish them, which, in-turn, are among the 100 top-cited journals in the world across the fields of health, engineering, and social sciences.…”

“…16 Depuis la première édition de l'É noncé CONSORT, plus de 200 autres directives de présentation (dont plusieurs incluent également des listes de contrôle) ont vu le jour pour améliorer la présentation de différents types d'études et de données; en outre, une initiative globale visant à améliorer la qualité et la transparence de la recherche, le Réseau EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Research -www.equator-network.org ), a vu le jour. Selon des mesures effectuées à l'aide de Google Scholar, l'É noncé CONSORT 2010 et quelques autres directives, notamment STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies), 17,18 STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies) 19,20 et PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), 21,22 comptent parmi les articles les plus cités des revues qui les publient; ces revues sont, à leur tour, parmi les 100 revues les plus citées au monde dans les domaines de la santé, de l'ingénierie et des sciences sociales.…”