Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement

Nassar, Elsa-Lynn; Levis, Brooke; Neyer, Marieke A.; Rice, Danielle B; Booij, Linda; Benedetti, Andrea; Thombs, Brett D.

doi:10.1002/mpr.1939

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 44 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%