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

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether encouraging authors to follow the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines improves the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

METHODS

In mid-2017, European Radiology started encouraging its authors to follow the STARD guidelines. Our MEDLINE search identified 114 diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology in 2015 and 2019. The quality of reporting was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the revised STARD statement. Item 11 was excluded because a meaningful decision about adherence was not possible. Student's t test for independent samples was used to analyze differences in the mean number of reported STARD items between studies published in 2015 and in 2019. In addition, we calculated differences related to the study design, data collection, and citation rate.

RESULTS

The mean total number of reported STARD items for all 114 diagnostic accuracy studies analyzed was 15.9 ± 2.6 (54.8%) of 29 items (range 9.5-22.5). The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was significantly better in 2019 (mean ± standard deviation (SD), 16.3 ± 2.7) than in 2015 (mean ± SD, 15.1 ± 2.3; p < 0.02). No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies according to the STARD statement was moderate with a slight improvement since European Radiology started to recommend its authors to follow the STARD guidelines.

KEY POINTS

• The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate with a mean total number of reported STARD items of 15.9 ± 2.6. • The adherence to STARD was significantly better in 2019 than in 2015 (16.3 ± 2.7 vs. 15.1 ± 2.3; p = 0.016). • No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09).

Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Laboratory Medicine: Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015

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.

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies on pelvic floor three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, a large number of studies have been published on the clinical relevance of pelvic floor three-dimensional (3D) transperineal ultrasound. Several studies compare sonography with other imaging modalities or clinical examination. The quality of reporting in these studies is not known. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the compliance of diagnostic accuracy studies investigating pelvic floor 3D ultrasound with the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines.

METHODS

Published articles on pelvic floor 3D ultrasound were identified by a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Prospective and retrospective studies that compared pelvic floor 3D ultrasound with other clinical and imaging diagnostics were included in the analysis. STARD compliance was assessed and quantified by two independent investigators, using 22 of the original 25 STARD checklist items. Items with the qualifier 'if done' (Items 13, 23 and 24) were excluded because they were not applicable to all papers. Each item was scored as reported (score = 1) or not reported (score = 0). Observer variability, the total number of reported STARD items per article and summary scores for each item were calculated. The difference in total score between STARD-adopting and non-adopting journals was tested statistically, as was the effect of year of publication.

RESULTS

Forty studies published in 13 scientific journals were included in the analysis. Mean ± SD STARD checklist score of the included articles was 16.0 ± 2.5 out of a maximum of 22 points. The lowest scores (< 50%) were found for reporting of handling of indeterminate results or missing responses, adverse events and the time interval between tests. Interobserver agreement for rating the STARD items was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.77). An independent t-test showed no significant mean difference ± SD in total STARD checklist score between STARD-adopting and non-adopting journals (16.4 ± 2.2 vs 15.9 ± 2.6, respectively). Mean ± SD STARD checklist score for articles published in 2003-2009 was lower, but not statistically different, compared with those published in 2010-2015 (15.2 ± 2.5 vs 16.6 ± 2.4, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The overall compliance with reporting guidelines of diagnostic accuracy studies on pelvic floor 3D transperineal ultrasound is relatively good compared with other fields of medicine. However, specific checklist items require more attention when reported. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Existing reporting guidelines for clinical trials are not completely relevant for implantable medical devices: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine relevant items for reporting clinical trials on implantable medical devices (IMDs) and to identify reporting guidelines which include these items.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A panel of experts identified the most relevant items for evaluating IMDs from an initial list based on reference papers. We then conducted a systematic review of articles indexed in MEDLINE. We retrieved reporting guidelines from the EQUATOR network's library for health research reporting. Finally, we screened these reporting guidelines to find those using our set of reporting items.

RESULTS

Seven relevant reporting items were selected that related to four topics: randomization, learning curve, surgical setting, and device information. A total of 348 reporting guidelines were identified, among which 26 met our inclusion criteria. However, none of the 26 reporting guidelines presented all seven items together. The most frequently reported item was timing of randomization (65%). On the contrary, device information and learning curve effects were poorly specified.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to identify specific items related to IMDs in reporting guidelines for clinical trials. We have shown that no existing reporting guideline is totally suitable for these devices.

Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

Objective

To determine the rate with which diagnostic test accuracy studies that are published in a general radiology journal adhere to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015, and to explore the relationship between adherence rate and citation rate while avoiding confounding by journal factors.

Materials and Methods

All eligible diagnostic test accuracy studies that were published in the Korean Journal of Radiology in 2011–2015 were identified. Five reviewers assessed each article for yes/no compliance with 27 of the 30 STARD 2015 checklist items (items 28, 29, and 30 were excluded). The total STARD score (number of fulfilled STARD items) was calculated. The score of the 15 STARD items that related directly to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was also calculated. The number of times each article was cited (as indicated by the Web of Science) after publication until March 2016 and the article exposure time (time in months between publication and March 2016) were extracted.

Results

Sixty-three articles were analyzed. The mean (range) total and QUADAS-2-related STARD scores were 20.0 (14.5–25) and 11.4 (7–15), respectively. The mean citation number was 4 (0–21). Citation number did not associate significantly with either STARD score after accounting for exposure time (total score: correlation coefficient = 0.154, p = 0.232; QUADAS-2-related score: correlation coefficient = 0.143, p = 0.266).

Conclusion

The degree of adherence to STARD 2015 was moderate for this journal, indicating that there is room for improvement. When adjusted for exposure time, the degree of adherence did not affect the citation rate.

The explicit mentioning of reporting guidelines in urogynecology journals in 2013: A bibliometric study

AIMS

Poor reporting of research may limit critical appraisal and reproducibility, whereas adherence to reporting guidelines (RG) can guarantee completeness and transparency. We aimed to determine the explicit citing of RGs (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE) in urogynecology articles in 2013, the requirements of relevant journals and a potential difference between urogynecology and general gynecology journals.

METHODS

All urogynecologic articles published between January and December 2013 in the journals NAU, IUJ, FPMRS, GREEN, AJOG, and BJOG were included. Issues were searched for systematic reviews, RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. Each electronic article was searched for the term PRISMA, CONSORT, or STROBE according to the study design. Instructions to Authors of the six journals were screened for requirement of using RGs.

RESULTS

We included 296 articles (243 observational studies, 40 RCTs, and 13 systematic reviews). The use of PRISMA guidelines was explicitly declared in 54% of systematic reviews, CONSORT guidelines were referenced in 25% of RCTs and STROBE in 1.2% of observational studies. The use of CONSORT is required by all journals except FPMRS. PRISMA and STROBE are only compulsory in the journals GREEN, AJOG, and BJOG. The overall rate of explicit mentioning of RGs comparing urogynecology and general gynecology journals was 6.7% versus 7.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The explicit mentioning of RGs was on a relatively low level. A slightly higher adherence was recognized among general gynecology journals compared to urogynecology journals. Stronger efforts should be taken to further promote the use of RGs in urogynecology.