Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: In January 2003, the STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) were published. An analysis of studies published in 2004 showed that the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies had improved marginally, without a more pronounced effect in journals that adopted STARD.
Objectives: To determine to what extent journals have adopted the STARD Statement and to what extent they have incorporated the STARD recommendations in their instructions for authors.
Methods: We identified the top 50 journals that frequently publish studies on diagnostic accuracy. In March 2006, one reviewer (NS) searched for instructions for authors on each journal's website and extracted all text mentioning STARD or other text regarding the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Preliminary results: Of the top 20 journals, 11 (55%) journals mention the STARD Statement in their instructions for authors. Most journals refer to the STARD initiative publication (55%) or refer to the STARD-page on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) website (55%). In two cases the link to the website was disconnected. In journals that adopted the STARD Statement, a broad variation in language to describe the purpose and use of the STARD Statement was found. Only one journal explicitly requires authors to submit the STARD checklist and to include a flow diagram in the manuscript. Most adopting journals, only refer to the STARD Statement, without describing their expectations regarding the use of the STARD Statement.
Conclusions: Half of the journals that regularly publish diagnostic accuracy studies have not yet adopted STARD. Journals that have adopted STARD should check their instructions for authors and make sure that their expectations regarding the use of the STARD Statement are clearly described. The existence of a special STARD website (www.stard-statement.org), including examples of STARD items and flow diagrams, may improve proper use of the STARD Statement by authors.
Objectives: To determine to what extent journals have adopted the STARD Statement and to what extent they have incorporated the STARD recommendations in their instructions for authors.
Methods: We identified the top 50 journals that frequently publish studies on diagnostic accuracy. In March 2006, one reviewer (NS) searched for instructions for authors on each journal's website and extracted all text mentioning STARD or other text regarding the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Preliminary results: Of the top 20 journals, 11 (55%) journals mention the STARD Statement in their instructions for authors. Most journals refer to the STARD initiative publication (55%) or refer to the STARD-page on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) website (55%). In two cases the link to the website was disconnected. In journals that adopted the STARD Statement, a broad variation in language to describe the purpose and use of the STARD Statement was found. Only one journal explicitly requires authors to submit the STARD checklist and to include a flow diagram in the manuscript. Most adopting journals, only refer to the STARD Statement, without describing their expectations regarding the use of the STARD Statement.
Conclusions: Half of the journals that regularly publish diagnostic accuracy studies have not yet adopted STARD. Journals that have adopted STARD should check their instructions for authors and make sure that their expectations regarding the use of the STARD Statement are clearly described. The existence of a special STARD website (www.stard-statement.org), including examples of STARD items and flow diagrams, may improve proper use of the STARD Statement by authors.