Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Complete and accurate reporting is a prerequisite for judging the internal and external validity of a diagnostic study. In January 2003, Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (the STARD-statement) were published.
Objective: To evaluate the quality of reporting in articles on diagnostic accuracy published in 2000, using the items of the STARD-statement.
Methods: Articles reporting on primary studies of diagnostic accuracy published in English in 2000 were identified by means of a validated search strategy in PubMed. Only articles published in journals with an impact factor of 4 or higher that regularly publish articles on diagnostic accuracy were selected. The quality of reporting was assessed according to the STARD-statement, which contains a list of 25 items and encourages the use of a flow diagram. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting of the included articles. The total number of articles which met the criteria of the items in the STARD-statement are presented. A sub-group analysis was carried out for the design of the study and the journal of publication.
Results: Included were 124 articles published in 2000 in Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, Archives of Neurology, British Medical Journal, Circulation, Clinical Chemistry, Gut, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Neurology, and Radiology. These consisted of 33 case control studies and 91 cohort studies. The mean STARD-score (range 0 to 25 points) was 11.9 (range 3.5 to 19.5). Only 41% of the articles reported on more than 50% of the STARD items, while none of the articles reported on more than 80%. A flow chart was only presented in 2 articles. Assessment of the reporting on the individual items of the STARD-statement revealed a wide variation, with some items described in 11% and others in 92% of the articles.
Conclusions: The quality of reporting in articles on diagnostic accuracy published in 2000 is clearly less than optimal, even in journals with a high impact factor. Authors, editors and reviewers should pay more attention to the reporting in an article by checking the items of the STARD-statement, and also include a flow diagram which represents the design of the study and the flow of patients.
Objective: To evaluate the quality of reporting in articles on diagnostic accuracy published in 2000, using the items of the STARD-statement.
Methods: Articles reporting on primary studies of diagnostic accuracy published in English in 2000 were identified by means of a validated search strategy in PubMed. Only articles published in journals with an impact factor of 4 or higher that regularly publish articles on diagnostic accuracy were selected. The quality of reporting was assessed according to the STARD-statement, which contains a list of 25 items and encourages the use of a flow diagram. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting of the included articles. The total number of articles which met the criteria of the items in the STARD-statement are presented. A sub-group analysis was carried out for the design of the study and the journal of publication.
Results: Included were 124 articles published in 2000 in Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, Archives of Neurology, British Medical Journal, Circulation, Clinical Chemistry, Gut, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Neurology, and Radiology. These consisted of 33 case control studies and 91 cohort studies. The mean STARD-score (range 0 to 25 points) was 11.9 (range 3.5 to 19.5). Only 41% of the articles reported on more than 50% of the STARD items, while none of the articles reported on more than 80%. A flow chart was only presented in 2 articles. Assessment of the reporting on the individual items of the STARD-statement revealed a wide variation, with some items described in 11% and others in 92% of the articles.
Conclusions: The quality of reporting in articles on diagnostic accuracy published in 2000 is clearly less than optimal, even in journals with a high impact factor. Authors, editors and reviewers should pay more attention to the reporting in an article by checking the items of the STARD-statement, and also include a flow diagram which represents the design of the study and the flow of patients.