Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative

Patrick M. Bossuyt*, Johannes B. Reitsma, David E. Bruns, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Paul P. Glasziou, Les M. Irwig, Jeroen G. Lijmer, David Moher, Drummond Rennie, Henrica C.W. De Vet

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Our objective was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study, and to evaluate its generalizability. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy 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 fiow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. The search for published guidelines regarding 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, using evidence whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)18-22
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology
Volume119
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2003

Cite this