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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Family practice 2004-02, Vol.21 (1), p.4-10 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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</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 & numerical data</subject><subject>Decision Trees</subject><subject>diagnostic accuracy</subject><subject>Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Diagnostic testing</subject><subject>Diagnostic Tests, Routine - standards</subject><subject>Diagnostic Tests, Routine - statistics & 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 & 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 & numerical data</topic><topic>Decision Trees</topic><topic>diagnostic accuracy</topic><topic>Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Diagnostic testing</topic><topic>Diagnostic Tests, Routine - standards</topic><topic>Diagnostic Tests, Routine - statistics & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & 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 |