Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Laboratory Medicine: Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Poor reporting quality in diagnostic accuracy studies hampers an adequate judgment of the validity of the study. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was published to improve the reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies published in Annals of Laboratory Medicine (ALM) to STARD 2015 and to identify directions for improvement in the reporting quality of these studies. Methods: Two independent authors assessed articles published in ALM between 2012–2018 for compliance with 30 STARD 2015 checklist items to identify all eligible diagnostic accuracy studies published during this period. We included 66 diagnostic accuracy studies. A total of the fulfilled STARD items were calculated, and adherence was analyzed on an individual-item basis. Results: The overall mean±SD number of STARD items reported for the included studies was 11.2±2.7. Only five (7.6%) studies adhered to more than 50% of the 30 items. No study satisfied more than 80% of the items. Large variability in adherence to reporting standards was detected across items, ranging from 0% to 100%. Conclusions: Adherence to STARD 2015 is suboptimal among diagnostic accuracy studies published in ALM. Our study emphasizes the necessity of adherence to STARD to improve the reporting quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies to be published in ALM.
Abstract
Background: Poor reporting quality in diagnostic accuracy studies hampers an adequate judgment of the validity of the study. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was published to improve the reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies published in Annals of Laboratory Medicine (ALM) to STARD 2015 and to identify directions for improvement in the reporting quality of these studies. Methods: Two independent authors assessed articles published in ALM between 2012–2018 for compliance with 30 STARD 2015 checklist items to identify all eligible diagnostic accuracy studies published during this period. We included 66 diagnostic accuracy studies. A total of the fulfilled STARD items were calculated, and adherence was analyzed on an individual-item basis. Results: The overall mean±SD number of STARD items reported for the included studies was 11.2±2.7. Only five (7.6%) studies adhered to more than 50% of the 30 items. No study satisfied more than 80% of the items. Large variability in adherence to reporting standards was detected across items, ranging from 0% to 100%. Conclusions: Adherence to STARD 2015 is suboptimal among diagnostic accuracy studies published in ALM. Our study emphasizes the necessity of adherence to STARD to improve the reporting quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies to be published in ALM.
참고문헌 (30)
- Kosack CS, "A guide to aid the selection of diagnostic tests", Bull World Health Organ, 95, pp.639~645 (2017)
- Bossuyt PM, "STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies", BMJ, 351, pp.h5527~ (2015)
- Bossuyt PM, "STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies", Clin Chem, 61, pp.1446~1452 (2015)
- Bossuyt PM, "STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies", Radiology, 277, pp.826~832 (2015)
- Schmidt RL, "Understanding sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies", Arch Pathol Lab Med, 137, pp.558~565 (2013)
- Reid MC, "Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good", JAMA, 274, pp.645~651 (1995)
- Glasziou P, "Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research", Lancet, 383, pp.267~276 (2014)
- Bossuyt PM, "The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy : explanation and elaboration", Clin Chem, 49, pp.7~18 (2003)
- Bossuyt PM, "Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Group", Croat Med J, 44, pp.635~638 (2003)
- Korevaar DA, "Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: some improvements after 10 years of STARD", Radiology, 274, pp.781~789 (2015)
- Korevaar DA, "Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies : a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD", Evid Based Med, 19, pp.47~54 (2014)
- Smidt N, "The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement : has it improved", Neurology, 67, pp.792~797 (2006)
- 김정호, "Editorial Announcement Regarding Title Change of the Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine to Annals of Laboratory Medicine", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 32(1), pp.1~2 (2012), 대한진단검사의학회
- Cohen JF, "STARD for Abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts", BMJ, 358, pp.j3751~ (2017)
- Walther S, "Compliance with STARD checklist among studies of coronary CT angiography : systematic review", Radiology, 271, pp.74~86 (2014)
- 최영준, "Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?", Korean Journal of Radiology, 17(5), pp.706~714 (2016), 대한영상의학회[DOI]
- Cohen JF, "STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration", BMJ Open, 6, pp.e012799~ (2016)
- Landis JR, "The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data", Biometrics, 33, pp.159~174 (1977)
- Michelessi M, "Diagnostic accuracy research in glaucoma is still incompletely reported: an application of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015", PLoS One, 12, pp.e0189716~ (2017)
- Hong PJ, "Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: adherence to STARD 2015", J Magn Reson Imaging, 47, pp.523~544 (2018)
- Fontela PS, "Quality and reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in TB, HIV and malaria : evaluation using QUADAS and STARD standards", PLoS One, 4, pp.e7753~ (2009)
- Whiting PF, "A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies", J Clin Epidemiol, 66, pp.1093~1104 (2013)
- Shinkins B, "Diagnostic accuracy studies : how to report and analyse inconclusive test results", BMJ, 346, pp.f2778~ (2013)
- Naaktgeboren CA, "Anticipating missing reference standard data when planning diagnostic accuracy studies", BMJ, 352, pp.i402~ (2016)
- Whiting PF, "QUADAS-2 : a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies", Ann Intern Med, 155, pp.529~536 (2011)
- Sterne JA, "ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions", BMJ, 355, pp.i4919~ (2016)
- 차영주, "Performance Evaluation of the OraQuick Hepatitis C Virus Rapid Antibody Test", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 33(3), pp.184~189 (2013), 대한진단검사의학회
- 이재현, "Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panel 1", 2, Annals of Laboratory Medicine, pp.2018, 38(1)[DOI]
- 황유선, "Comparison of the AdvanSure Human Papillomavirus Screening Real-Time PCR, the Abbott RealTime High Risk Human Papillomavirus Test, and the Hybrid Capture Human Papillomavirus DNA Test for the Detection of Human Papillomavirus", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 32(3), pp.201~205 (2012), 대한진단검사의학회[DOI]
- Gupta A, "Verification and incorporation biases in studies assessing screening tests : prostate-specific antigen as an example", Urology, 64, pp.106~111 (2004)