STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

By Jérémie F. Cohen, D. Korevaar, Douglas G. Altman, D. Bruns, Constantine Gatsonis, Lotty Hooft, L. Irwig, D. Levine, HC de Vet, Patrick M. M. Bossuyt. BMJ Open, 2016

2,218 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard. Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.

Subfields: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Epidemiology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/23bcfa8689fd3158e413b978193deb6b0d4cc345

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

In Epidemiology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multi-centre study. (2020, neutral): “%]) and distant metastases (32 men [21%; 15–28] vs 10 men [7%; 3–12]; figure 3, appendix p 30).”
Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement (2018, background): “Without this information, generalizability of the results to the clinical setting may be limited.(16,30) Second, identifying minimally acceptable test accuracy may be helpful in forming conclusions.”