The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement
Has it improved?
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments
This article has a correction. Please see:
![Loading Loading](https://n.neurology.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/panels_ajax_tab/images/loading.gif)
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To assess whether the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies has improved since the publication of the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy studies (STARD statement).
Methods: The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in 12 medical journals in 2000 (pre-STARD) and 2004 (post-STARD) was evaluated by two reviewers independently. For each article, the number of reported STARD items was counted (range 0 to 25). Differences in completeness of reporting between articles published in 2000 and 2004 were analyzed, using multilevel analyses.
Results: We included 124 articles published in 2000 and 141 articles published in 2004. Mean number of reported STARD items was 11.9 (range 3.5 to 19.5) in 2000 and 13.6 (range 4.0 to 21.0) in 2004, an increase of 1.81 items (95% CI: 0.61 to 3.01). Articles published in 2004 reported the following significantly more often: methods for calculating test reproducibility of the index test (16% vs 35%); distribution of the severity of disease and other diagnoses (23% vs 53%); estimates of variability of diagnostic accuracy between subgroups (39% vs 60%); and a flow diagram (2% vs 12%).
Conclusions: The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies has improved slightly over time, without a more pronounced effect in journals that adopted the STARD statement. As there is still room for improvement, editors should mention the use of the STARD statement as a requirement in their guidelines for authors, and instruct reviewers to check the STARD items. Authors should include a flow diagram in their manuscript.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. Deborah Friedman and Dr. Stacy Smith
► Watch
Related Articles
Topics Discussed
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Editorials
There is nothing staid about STARDProgress in the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studiesKaren C. Johnston, Robert G. Holloway et al.Neurology, September 11, 2006 -
Views & Reviews
Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementiaThe STARDdem InitiativeAnna H. Noel-Storr, Jenny M. McCleery, Edo Richard et al.Neurology, June 18, 2014 -
Eye on Practice
Quality improvement and practice-based research in neurology using the electronic medical recordDemetrius M. Maraganore, Roberta Frigerio, Nazia Kazmi et al.Neurology: Clinical Practice, September 24, 2015 -
Article
Circulating epithelial tumor cell analysis in CSF in patients with leptomeningeal metastasesMark T.J. van Bussel, Dick Pluim, Bojana Milojkovic Kerklaan et al.Neurology, January 06, 2020