Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

Objective. Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. Methods. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Family practice 2004-02, Vol.21 (1), p.4-10
Hauptverfasser: Bossuyt, Patrick M, Reitsma, Johannes B, Bruns, David E, Gatsonis, Constantine A, Glasziou, Paul P, Irwig, Les M, Lijmer, Jeroen G, Moher, David, Rennie, Drummond, de Vet, Henrica CW
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 10
container_issue 1
container_start_page 4
container_title Family practice
container_volume 21
creator Bossuyt, Patrick M
Reitsma, Johannes B
Bruns, David E
Gatsonis, Constantine A
Glasziou, Paul P
Irwig, Les M
Lijmer, Jeroen G
Moher, David
Rennie, Drummond
de Vet, Henrica CW
description Objective. Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. Methods. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. Results. The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and/or the reference standard. Conclusions. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/fampra/cmh103
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80139869</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>57171611</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-65920783863f84d0339c800bcab023f092b34e5ce80f1bee943fef1064a372cc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUFLHDEUgEOp1K167LUMPfQ2-pLMJJPe1LauIAi6ovQSMpkXjd2ZTJNMW_99d9lFoRdPeeF9fPD4CPlA4ZCC4kfO9GM0R7Z_oMDfkBmtBJSMMfWWzIAJXjLKxS55n9IjAEhZy3dkl1ZSAHAxI3oR_pjYpcKGflxixsIMXWGsnaJZfSKOIWY_3BfBFSlPnce0Hjtv7oeQsrdb1j59KfIDFteL46uvhR989ib737hPdpxZJjzYvnvk5vu3xem8vLg8Oz89vihtxUQuRa0YyIY3grum6oBzZRuA1poWGHegWMsrrC024GiLqCru0FEQleGSWcv3yOeNd4zh14Qp694ni8ulGTBMSTdAuWqEehWsJZVUULoCP_0HPoYpDqsjNFWqphXIta3cQDaGlCI6PUbfm_ikKeh1H73pozd9VvzHrXRqe-xe6G2QF6FPGf8-7038qYXkstbzux96fitrdnJ3phn_B48Wm-o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>199514079</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Bossuyt, Patrick M ; Reitsma, Johannes B ; Bruns, David E ; Gatsonis, Constantine A ; Glasziou, Paul P ; Irwig, Les M ; Lijmer, Jeroen G ; Moher, David ; Rennie, Drummond ; de Vet, Henrica CW</creator><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, Patrick M ; Reitsma, Johannes B ; Bruns, David E ; Gatsonis, Constantine A ; Glasziou, Paul P ; Irwig, Les M ; Lijmer, Jeroen G ; Moher, David ; Rennie, Drummond ; de Vet, Henrica CW ; STARD Group</creatorcontrib><description>Objective. Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. Methods. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. Results. The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and/or the reference standard. Conclusions. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0263-2136</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1460-2229</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1460-2229</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmh103</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14760036</identifier><identifier>CODEN: FAPREH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Bias ; Checklist ; Clinical Trials as Topic - standards ; Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Decision Trees ; diagnostic accuracy ; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Diagnostic testing ; Diagnostic Tests, Routine - standards ; Diagnostic Tests, Routine - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Diseases ; flow diagram ; Humans ; Medical journals ; Netherlands ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Publishing - standards ; Reporting ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design - standards ; Research Design - statistics &amp; numerical data ; sensitivity and specificity ; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy</subject><ispartof>Family practice, 2004-02, Vol.21 (1), p.4-10</ispartof><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press(England) Feb 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-65920783863f84d0339c800bcab023f092b34e5ce80f1bee943fef1064a372cc3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908,30983</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14760036$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, Patrick M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reitsma, Johannes B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruns, David E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gatsonis, Constantine A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glasziou, Paul P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Irwig, Les M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lijmer, Jeroen G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rennie, Drummond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vet, Henrica CW</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STARD Group</creatorcontrib><title>Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative</title><title>Family practice</title><addtitle>Family Practice</addtitle><description>Objective. Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. Methods. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. Results. The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and/or the reference standard. Conclusions. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Checklist</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Decision Trees</subject><subject>diagnostic accuracy</subject><subject>Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Diagnostic testing</subject><subject>Diagnostic Tests, Routine - standards</subject><subject>Diagnostic Tests, Routine - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Diseases</subject><subject>flow diagram</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical journals</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Publishing - standards</subject><subject>Reporting</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><subject>Research Design - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>sensitivity and specificity</subject><subject>Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy</subject><issn>0263-2136</issn><issn>1460-2229</issn><issn>1460-2229</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUFLHDEUgEOp1K167LUMPfQ2-pLMJJPe1LauIAi6ovQSMpkXjd2ZTJNMW_99d9lFoRdPeeF9fPD4CPlA4ZCC4kfO9GM0R7Z_oMDfkBmtBJSMMfWWzIAJXjLKxS55n9IjAEhZy3dkl1ZSAHAxI3oR_pjYpcKGflxixsIMXWGsnaJZfSKOIWY_3BfBFSlPnce0Hjtv7oeQsrdb1j59KfIDFteL46uvhR989ib737hPdpxZJjzYvnvk5vu3xem8vLg8Oz89vihtxUQuRa0YyIY3grum6oBzZRuA1poWGHegWMsrrC024GiLqCru0FEQleGSWcv3yOeNd4zh14Qp694ni8ulGTBMSTdAuWqEehWsJZVUULoCP_0HPoYpDqsjNFWqphXIta3cQDaGlCI6PUbfm_ikKeh1H73pozd9VvzHrXRqe-xe6G2QF6FPGf8-7038qYXkstbzux96fitrdnJ3phn_B48Wm-o</recordid><startdate>200402</startdate><enddate>200402</enddate><creator>Bossuyt, Patrick M</creator><creator>Reitsma, Johannes B</creator><creator>Bruns, David E</creator><creator>Gatsonis, Constantine A</creator><creator>Glasziou, Paul P</creator><creator>Irwig, Les M</creator><creator>Lijmer, Jeroen G</creator><creator>Moher, David</creator><creator>Rennie, Drummond</creator><creator>de Vet, Henrica CW</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200402</creationdate><title>Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative</title><author>Bossuyt, Patrick M ; Reitsma, Johannes B ; Bruns, David E ; Gatsonis, Constantine A ; Glasziou, Paul P ; Irwig, Les M ; Lijmer, Jeroen G ; Moher, David ; Rennie, Drummond ; de Vet, Henrica CW</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-65920783863f84d0339c800bcab023f092b34e5ce80f1bee943fef1064a372cc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Checklist</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Decision Trees</topic><topic>diagnostic accuracy</topic><topic>Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Diagnostic testing</topic><topic>Diagnostic Tests, Routine - standards</topic><topic>Diagnostic Tests, Routine - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Diseases</topic><topic>flow diagram</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical journals</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Publishing - standards</topic><topic>Reporting</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><topic>Research Design - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>sensitivity and specificity</topic><topic>Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, Patrick M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reitsma, Johannes B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruns, David E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gatsonis, Constantine A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glasziou, Paul P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Irwig, Les M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lijmer, Jeroen G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rennie, Drummond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vet, Henrica CW</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STARD Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Family practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bossuyt, Patrick M</au><au>Reitsma, Johannes B</au><au>Bruns, David E</au><au>Gatsonis, Constantine A</au><au>Glasziou, Paul P</au><au>Irwig, Les M</au><au>Lijmer, Jeroen G</au><au>Moher, David</au><au>Rennie, Drummond</au><au>de Vet, Henrica CW</au><aucorp>STARD Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative</atitle><jtitle>Family practice</jtitle><addtitle>Family Practice</addtitle><date>2004-02</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>4</spage><epage>10</epage><pages>4-10</pages><issn>0263-2136</issn><issn>1460-2229</issn><eissn>1460-2229</eissn><coden>FAPREH</coden><abstract>Objective. Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. Methods. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. Results. The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and/or the reference standard. Conclusions. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>14760036</pmid><doi>10.1093/fampra/cmh103</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0263-2136
ispartof Family practice, 2004-02, Vol.21 (1), p.4-10
issn 0263-2136
1460-2229
1460-2229
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80139869
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Accuracy
Bias
Checklist
Clinical Trials as Topic - standards
Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Decision Trees
diagnostic accuracy
Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - statistics & numerical data
Diagnostic testing
Diagnostic Tests, Routine - standards
Diagnostic Tests, Routine - statistics & numerical data
Diseases
flow diagram
Humans
Medical journals
Netherlands
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Predictive Value of Tests
Publishing - standards
Reporting
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design - standards
Research Design - statistics & numerical data
sensitivity and specificity
Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy
title Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T17%3A51%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Towards%20complete%20and%20accurate%20reporting%20of%20studies%20of%20diagnostic%20accuracy:%20the%20STARD%20initiative&rft.jtitle=Family%20practice&rft.au=Bossuyt,%20Patrick%20M&rft.aucorp=STARD%20Group&rft.date=2004-02&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=4&rft.epage=10&rft.pages=4-10&rft.issn=0263-2136&rft.eissn=1460-2229&rft.coden=FAPREH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/fampra/cmh103&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E57171611%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=199514079&rft_id=info:pmid/14760036&rfr_iscdi=true