Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) checklist aims to improve the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. So far, only a few journals have adopted the STARD checklist.
Objective: We investigated the current quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies focusing on laboratory medicine.
Methods: We searched for journals formally adopting the STARD in the 'Medical laboratory technology' category of ISI Web of Knowledge database. As a comparator, we included matching journals that do not adopt the checklist. We selected studies reporting an estimate of accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, area under ROC curve, likelihood ratio, predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio) published in 2014. For each article, we analyzed the compliance to STARD items and classified the reporting as poor (less than 10 items reported), acceptable or optimal (more than 20 items reported).
Results: Only three of 31 journals listed in the field of laboratory medicine mentioned the STARD checklist in their instructions for authors. We evaluated 24 studies published in these journals (Clinical Chemistry; Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, and Annals of Clinical Biochemistry) and seven studies published in Chimica Clinica Acta which does not adopt the STARD (data collection is ongoing on other journals). Overall, the median number of items reported was 11 (range: 5 to 18). None of the studies complied with the entire checklist. Reporting was evaluated as poor in 15 of 31 studies (48.4% Table 1). The most frequently reported items were index test and reference standards. Papers often lacked an accurate description of the population enrolled.
Conclusions: The majority of laboratory medicine journals do not adopt the STARD checklist. Some of the STARD items may be irrelevant to the studies being evaluated, however, preliminary data suggest that the use of the STARD checklist improves the quality of reporting. Final data on quality of reporting of journals adopting or not adopting the STARD checklist will be presented. Inadequate reporting of study participant characteristics may limit the relevance and application of results in practice.
Objective: We investigated the current quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies focusing on laboratory medicine.
Methods: We searched for journals formally adopting the STARD in the 'Medical laboratory technology' category of ISI Web of Knowledge database. As a comparator, we included matching journals that do not adopt the checklist. We selected studies reporting an estimate of accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, area under ROC curve, likelihood ratio, predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio) published in 2014. For each article, we analyzed the compliance to STARD items and classified the reporting as poor (less than 10 items reported), acceptable or optimal (more than 20 items reported).
Results: Only three of 31 journals listed in the field of laboratory medicine mentioned the STARD checklist in their instructions for authors. We evaluated 24 studies published in these journals (Clinical Chemistry; Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, and Annals of Clinical Biochemistry) and seven studies published in Chimica Clinica Acta which does not adopt the STARD (data collection is ongoing on other journals). Overall, the median number of items reported was 11 (range: 5 to 18). None of the studies complied with the entire checklist. Reporting was evaluated as poor in 15 of 31 studies (48.4% Table 1). The most frequently reported items were index test and reference standards. Papers often lacked an accurate description of the population enrolled.
Conclusions: The majority of laboratory medicine journals do not adopt the STARD checklist. Some of the STARD items may be irrelevant to the studies being evaluated, however, preliminary data suggest that the use of the STARD checklist improves the quality of reporting. Final data on quality of reporting of journals adopting or not adopting the STARD checklist will be presented. Inadequate reporting of study participant characteristics may limit the relevance and application of results in practice.