Top

Insights into Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Original Article

Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?

Authors: Ann-Christine Stahl, Anne-Sophie Tietz, Marc Dewey, Benjamin Kendziora

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate whether making the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) mandatory by the leading journal ‘Radiology’ in 2016 improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Methods

A validated search term was used to identify diagnostic accuracy studies published in Radiology in 2015 and 2019. STARD adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Each item was scored as yes (1 point) if adequately reported or as no (0 points) if not. The total STARD score per article was calculated. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests were used to evaluate differences of the total STARD scores between 2015 and 2019. In addition, the total STARD score was compared between studies stratified by study design, citation rate, and data collection.

Results

The median number of reported STARD items for the total of 66 diagnostic accuracy studies from 2015 to 2019 was 18.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 17.5–20.0) of 29. Adherence to the STARD checklist significantly improved the STARD score from a median of 18.0 (IQR 15.5–19.5) in 2015 to a median of 19.5 (IQR 18.5–21.5) in 2019 (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studies stratified by mode of data collection (prospective vs. retrospective studies, p = 0.68), study design (cohort vs. case–control studies, p = 0.81), and citation rate (two groups divided by median split [< 0.56 citations/month vs. ≥ 0.56 citations/month], p = 0.54).

Conclusions

Making use of the STARD checklist mandatory significantly increased the adherence with reporting standards for diagnostic accuracy studies and should be considered by editors and publishers for widespread implementation.

Critical relevance statement

Editors may consider making reporting guidelines mandatory to improve the scientific quality.

Graphical Abstract

Available only for authorised users

Sackett DL, Haynes RB (2002) The architecture of diagnostic research. BMJ 7336:539CrossRef

van Stralen KJ, Stel VS, Reitsma JB, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, Jager KJ (2009) Diagnostic methods I: sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy. Kidney Int 12:1257–1263CrossRef

Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J (2004) Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 3:189–202CrossRef

Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PMM (2006) Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 4:469–476CrossRef

Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG et al (2016) STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 11:e012799–e012799CrossRef

Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J (2002) Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ 7338:669–671CrossRef

Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM (2013) Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin.” Radiology 2:581–588CrossRef

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2015) STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ Br Med J. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2015.246280CrossRef

Chan A-W, Song F, Vickers A et al (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 9913:257–266CrossRef

10.

Sailer AM, van Zwam WH, Wildberger JE, Grutters JPC (2015) Cost-effectiveness modelling in diagnostic imaging: a stepwise approach. Eur Radiol 12:3629–3637CrossRef

11.

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 7379:41–44CrossRef

13.

Cohen J, Korevaar DA, Gatsonis C et al (2017) STARD for abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts. BMJ j3751

14.

Levine D, Kressel HY (2015) Radiology 2016: The care and scientific rigor used to process and evaluate original research manuscripts for publication. Radiology 1:6–10

15.

Dewey M, Levine D, Bossuyt PM, Kressel HY (2019) Impact and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers. Eur Radiol 8:3986–3995CrossRef

16.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ n71

17.

Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G et al (2012) The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 1:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Devillé WLJM, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM (2000) Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. J Clin Epidemiol 1:65–69CrossRef

19.

Smidt N, Rutjes AWS, van der Windt DAWM et al (2006) Reproducibility of the STARD checklist: an instrument to assess the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 1:12CrossRef

20.

Virgili G, Michelessi M, Miele A et al (2017) STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma. PLoS One 10:e0186209CrossRef

21.

Wilczynski NL (2008) Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: no change since STARD statement publication–before-and-after study. Radiology 3:817–823CrossRef

22.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 8:529–536CrossRef

23.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1:159–174CrossRef

24.

Korevaar DA, van Enst W, Spijker R, Bossuyt P, Hooft L (2013) Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD. Evid Based Med. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2013-101637CrossRefPubMed

25.

Stahl AC, Tietz AS, Kendziora B, Dewey M (2022) Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology? Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09008-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Choi YJ, Chung MS, Koo HJ, Park JE, Yoon HM, Park SH (2016) Does the reporting quality of diagnostic test accuracy studies, as defined by STARD 2015, affect citation? Korean J Radiol 5:706–714CrossRef

27.

Hogan KO, Fraga GR (2020) Compliance with standards for STARD 2015 reporting recommendations in pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 6:828–836CrossRef

28.

Dilauro M, McInnes MD, Korevaar DA et al (2016) Is There an association between STARD statement adherence and citation rate? Radiology 1:62–67CrossRef

29.

Hong PJ, Korevaar DA, McGrath TA et al (2018) Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: adherence to STARD 2015. J Magn Reson Imaging 2:523–544CrossRef

30.

Smidt N, Rutjes AWS, van der Windt DAWM et al (2006) The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement. Neurology 5:792CrossRef

Title: Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?
Authors: Ann-Christine Stahl
Anne-Sophie Tietz
Marc Dewey
Benjamin Kendziora
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01432-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Critical relevance statement

Graphical Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Critical relevance statement

Graphical Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Radiomics model to classify mammary masses using breast DCE-MRI compared to the BI-RADS classification performance

Focal breast edema and breast edema score on T2-weighted images provides valuable biological information for invasive breast cancer

Feasibility and effectiveness of automatic deep learning network and radiomics models for differentiating tumor stroma ratio in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Predictive models and early postoperative recurrence evaluation for hepatocellular carcinoma based on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging

Diagnostic error and bias in the department of radiology: a pictorial essay

MRI of endometriosis in correlation with the #Enzian classification: applicability and structured report