STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

By Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, Johannes B Reitsma, D. Bruns, Constantine Gatsonis, P. Glasziou, L. Irwig, J. Lijmer, David Moher, D. Rennie, HC de Vet and 7 more. British medical journal, 2015

3,489 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6f5cdf7f45a314be3546f5644118089b22223593

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration (2016, neutral): “The STARD statement was initially released in 2003 and updated in 2015.(10) The objectives of this update were to include recent evidence about sources of bias and variability”
Canadian Association of Radiologists White Paper on Artificial Intelligence in Radiology (2018, methodology): “For instance, AI tools developed for diagnostic purposes should follow the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy) statement [20], which provides a list of essential items for reporting in diagnostic accuracy studies to improve the completeness and transparency of these studies.”
Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. (2020, methodology): “We created a new section at the end of the checklist pertaining to administrative information, such as funding, which mirrors the style used in other reporting guidelines (15, 17, 46, 47).”
Conversational agents in healthcare: a systematic review (2018, methodology): “…telehealth (CONSORT-EHEALTH), 46 the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) statement, 47 and the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD), 48 among others from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network.”
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review (2017, methodology): “Manuscripts can currently be checked against the following reporting guidelines: CONSORT 2010 [139], STROBE [140], STARD [141, 142], ARRIVE [143] and The Uniform Requirements for Medical Journals (http:// www.”
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: review of methods with applications in diagnostic medicine (2018, background): “Note that the STARD group (Bossuyt 2015) has published a list of features (study design and analysis items) that serves to standardize the reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies but is also a helpful aid during the planning phase.”