Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?

Validation of artificial intelligence application for dental caries diagnosis on intraoral bitewing and periapical radiographs

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the reliability of AI-based system that assists the healthcare processes in the diagnosis of caries on intraoral radiographs.

METHODS

The proximal surfaces of the 323 selected teeth on the intraoral radiographs were evaluated by two independent observers using an AI-based (Diagnocat) system. The presence or absence of carious lesions was recorded during Phase 1. After 4 months, the AI-aided human observers evaluated the same radiographs (Phase 2), and the advanced convolutional neural network (CNN) reassessed the radiographic data (Phase 3). Subsequently, data reflecting human disagreements were excluded (Phase 4). For each phase, the Cohen and Fleiss kappa values, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy of Diagnocat, were calculated.

RESULTS

During the four phases, the range of Cohen kappa values between the human observers and Diagnocat were κ=0.66-1, κ=0.58-0.7, and κ=0.49-0.7. The Fleiss kappa values were κ=0.57-0.8. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy values ranged between 0.51-0.76, 0.88-0.97 and 0.76-0.86, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Diagnocat CNN supports the evaluation of intraoral radiographs for caries diagnosis, as determined by consensus between human and AI system observers.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Our study may aid in the understanding of deep learning-based systems developed for dental imaging modalities for dentists and contribute to expanding the body of results in the field of AI-supported dental radiology..

Self-reported checklists and quality scoring tools in radiomics: a meta-research

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of reporting checklists and quality scoring tools for self-reporting purposes in radiomics literature.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted in PubMed (date, April 23, 2023). The radiomics literature was sampled at random after a sample size calculation with a priori power analysis. A systematic assessment for self-reporting, including the use of documentation such as completed checklists or quality scoring tools, was conducted in original research papers. These eligible papers underwent independent evaluation by a panel of nine readers, with three readers assigned to each paper. Automatic annotation was used to assist in this process. Then, a detailed item-by-item confirmation analysis was carried out on papers with checklist documentation, with independent evaluation of two readers.

RESULTS

The sample size calculation yielded 117 papers. Most of the included papers were retrospective (94%; 110/117), single-center (68%; 80/117), based on their private data (89%; 104/117), and lacked external validation (79%; 93/117). Only seven papers (6%) had at least one self-reported document (Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), or Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM)), with a statistically significant binomial test (p < 0.001). Median rate of confirmed items for all three documents was 81% (interquartile range, 6). For quality scoring tools, documented scores were higher than suggested scores, with a mean difference of - 7.2 (standard deviation, 6.8).

CONCLUSION

Radiomic publications often lack self-reported checklists or quality scoring tools. Even when such documents are provided, it is essential to be cautious, as the accuracy of the reported items or scores may be questionable.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Current state of radiomic literature reveals a notable absence of self-reporting with documentation and inaccurate reporting practices. This critical observation may serve as a catalyst for motivating the radiomics community to adopt and utilize such tools appropriately, thereby fostering rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of their research, moving the field forward.

KEY POINTS

• In radiomics literature, there has been a notable absence of self-reporting with documentation. • Even if such documents are provided, it is critical to exercise caution because the accuracy of the reported items or scores may be questionable. • Radiomics community needs to be motivated to adopt and appropriately utilize the reporting checklists and quality scoring tools.

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Complete reporting is essential for clinical research. However, the endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals is still unclear. Further, as a field extensively utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), the adoption of both general and AI reporting guidelines would be necessary for enhancing quality and transparency of radiological research. This study aims to investigate the endorsement of general reporting guidelines and those for AI applications in medical imaging in radiological journals, and explore associated journal characteristic variables.

METHODS

This meta-research study screened journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category, Science Citation Index Expanded of the 2022 Journal Citation Reports, and excluded journals not publishing original research, in non-English languages, and instructions for authors unavailable. The endorsement of fifteen general reporting guidelines and ten AI reporting guidelines was rated using a five-level tool: "active strong", "active weak", "passive moderate", "passive weak", and "none". The association between endorsement and journal characteristic variables was evaluated by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We included 117 journals. The top-five endorsed reporting guidelines were CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 58.1%, 68/117), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 54.7%, 64/117), STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, 51.3%, 60/117), STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy, 50.4%, 59/117), and ARRIVE (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 35.9%, 42/117). The most implemented AI reporting guideline was CLAIM (Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, 1.7%, 2/117), while other nine AI reporting guidelines were not mentioned. The Journal Impact Factor quartile and publisher were associated with endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals.

CONCLUSIONS

The general reporting guideline endorsement was suboptimal in radiological journals. The implementation of reporting guidelines for AI applications in medical imaging was extremely low. Their adoption should be strengthened to facilitate quality and transparency of radiological study reporting.

Adherence to Complication Reporting for Randomized Controlled Trials Contained in Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Purpose

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently used in creating recommendations contained within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, investigations outside of hand surgery have reported that RCTs within CPGs infrequently report complications and harms-related data. Our purpose was to assess adherence to complication reporting and harms-related outcomes contained in the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension of Harms and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) reporting checklists for RCTs within the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS) CPGs for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

Methods

We identified all RCTs within the AAOS CTS CPGs. All therapeutic RCTs and diagnostic studies were included. We used the CONSORT Harms Checklist criteria to assess adherence to the reporting of adverse events for therapeutic RCTs and the STARD criteria to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the articles. We defined adequate compliance as adherence to ≥50% of the checklist items.

Results

We identified 82 therapeutic RCTs and 90 diagnostic accuracy articles within the AAOS CTS CPG. For therapeutic RCTs, we found that the average compliance with the published checklists was 19%. For diagnostic studies, the average compliance with checklists was found to be 55%. Eleven therapeutic RCTs (13%) and 60 diagnostic studies (67%) were determined to have adequate compliance for the CONSORT and STARD checklists, respectively.

Conclusions

Randomized controlled trials in the AAOS CPGs for CTS have low compliance with the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist. Although the overall adherence to the items published in the STARD statement for diagnostic accuracy evaluation remains higher, future efforts should be made to improve the adherence rates to both checklists.

Clinical relevance

Improved standardization of complication reporting may aid in comparing outcomes across multiple clinical investigations of upper-extremity procedures.

Developing Consensus-Based Guidelines for Case Reporting in Aesthetic Medicine: Enhancing Transparency and Standardization

Clinical case reporting plays a vital role in sharing detailed patient narratives, providing insights into rare conditions, innovative treatments, and unexpected outcomes. However, existing reporting guidelines in aesthetic medicine fail to capture the specific nuances of procedures and outcomes in this field. The authors' objectives were to develop comprehensive guidelines for Case REporting in Aesthetic Medicine (CREAM). The study employed a 3-phase consensus process, including a literature review, expert interviews, and a consensus meeting. A diverse group of 10 expert participants (plastic surgeons, dermatologists, noncore specialists, evidence-based medicine expert, and research scientist) in Phase I and 30 experienced aesthetic practitioners in Phase II contributed to the research. Statistical analysis was conducted to assess agreement levels among participants and explore associations and variations within the data. The participants represented various specialties, genders, LGBTQ+ identities, and ethnic backgrounds. The research resulted in the development of the CREAM guidelines, consisting of a 16-item checklist. The guidelines covered essential aspects of case reporting, such as patient and practice information, procedure details, clinical assessment and outcomes, adverse events, and ethical considerations. Statistical analysis indicated a high level of consensus among participants, as well as significant associations between checklist items. CREAM guidelines represent a step toward enhancing transparency and standardization in case reporting in aesthetic medicine. Adhering to these guidelines will allow authors to contribute to a robust evidence base, prioritize patient safety, and drive advancements aesthetic medicine.

Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether making the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) mandatory by the leading journal 'Radiology' in 2016 improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

METHODS

A validated search term was used to identify diagnostic accuracy studies published in Radiology in 2015 and 2019. STARD adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Each item was scored as yes (1 point) if adequately reported or as no (0 points) if not. The total STARD score per article was calculated. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate differences of the total STARD scores between 2015 and 2019. In addition, the total STARD score was compared between studies stratified by study design, citation rate, and data collection.

RESULTS

The median number of reported STARD items for the total of 66 diagnostic accuracy studies from 2015 to 2019 was 18.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 17.5-20.0) of 29. Adherence to the STARD checklist significantly improved the STARD score from a median of 18.0 (IQR 15.5-19.5) in 2015 to a median of 19.5 (IQR 18.5-21.5) in 2019 (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studies stratified by mode of data collection (prospective vs. retrospective studies, p = 0.68), study design (cohort vs. case-control studies, p = 0.81), and citation rate (two groups divided by median split [< 0.56 citations/month vs. ≥ 0.56 citations/month], p = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Making use of the STARD checklist mandatory significantly increased the adherence with reporting standards for diagnostic accuracy studies and should be considered by editors and publishers for widespread implementation.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Editors may consider making reporting guidelines mandatory to improve the scientific quality.

CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR): a step-by-step reporting guideline for authors and reviewers endorsed by ESR and EuSoMII

Even though radiomics can hold great potential for supporting clinical decision-making, its current use is mostly limited to academic research, without applications in routine clinical practice. The workflow of radiomics is complex due to several methodological steps and nuances, which often leads to inadequate reporting and evaluation, and poor reproducibility. Available reporting guidelines and checklists for artificial intelligence and predictive modeling include relevant good practices, but they are not tailored to radiomic research. There is a clear need for a complete radiomics checklist for study planning, manuscript writing, and evaluation during the review process to facilitate the repeatability and reproducibility of studies. We here present a documentation standard for radiomic research that can guide authors and reviewers. Our motivation is to improve the quality and reliability and, in turn, the reproducibility of radiomic research. We name the checklist CLEAR (CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research), to convey the idea of being more transparent. With its 58 items, the CLEAR checklist should be considered a standardization tool providing the minimum requirements for presenting clinical radiomics research. In addition to a dynamic online version of the checklist, a public repository has also been set up to allow the radiomics community to comment on the checklist items and adapt the checklist for future versions. Prepared and revised by an international group of experts using a modified Delphi method, we hope the CLEAR checklist will serve well as a single and complete scientific documentation tool for authors and reviewers to improve the radiomics literature.

Diagnostic quality model (DQM): an integrated framework for the assessment of diagnostic quality when using AI/ML

BACKGROUND

Laboratory medicine has reached the era where promises of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) seem palpable. Currently, the primary responsibility for risk-benefit assessment in clinical practice resides with the medical director. Unfortunately, there is no tool or concept that enables diagnostic quality assessment for the various potential AI/ML applications. Specifically, we noted that an operational definition of laboratory diagnostic quality - for the specific purpose of assessing AI/ML improvements - is currently missing.

METHODS

A session at the 3rd Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Laboratory Medicine in 2022 on "AI in the Laboratory of the Future" prompted an expert roundtable discussion. Here we present a conceptual diagnostic quality framework for the specific purpose of assessing AI/ML implementations.

RESULTS

The presented framework is termed diagnostic quality model (DQM) and distinguishes AI/ML improvements at the test, procedure, laboratory, or healthcare ecosystem level. The operational definition illustrates the nested relationship among these levels. The model can help to define relevant objectives for implementation and how levels come together to form coherent diagnostics. The affected levels are referred to as scope and we provide a rubric to quantify AI/ML improvements while complying with existing, mandated regulatory standards. We present 4 relevant clinical scenarios including multi-modal diagnostics and compare the model to existing quality management systems.

CONCLUSIONS

A diagnostic quality model is essential to navigate the complexities of clinical AI/ML implementations. The presented diagnostic quality framework can help to specify and communicate the key implications of AI/ML solutions in laboratory diagnostics.