The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration

By Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, Johannes B Reitsma, D. Bruns, Constantine Gatsonis, P. Glasziou, L. Irwig, David Moher, D. Rennie, HC de Vet, J. Lijmer. Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online], 2003

1,546 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bbb71288bc7ec2011c0299766b5728b10bd96b50

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 General Health Professions

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures (2014, neutral): “…in Epidemiology) [4], TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) [5], STARD (STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies) [6], STREGA (Strengthening the reporting of gen-etic association studies) [7], as well as in the recently published CONSORT PRO [8].”
Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies: The CHARMS Checklist (2014, background): “, blinded to) the results of the index tests is well established [35,40,54,69,79,80,85].”
A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research (2010, neutral): “PMID: 12520693 Clin Biochem 2003;36(1):2–7.”
Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. (2005, background): “Second, our understanding of how sources of bias and variability can affect estimates of diagnostic accuracy is largely based on thesemeasures [27,28].”
Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies (2006, methodology): “These items were selected on the basis of recent systematic reviews of the available literature.(9,14,15) Table 1 displays 9 additional items that were selected to evaluate the quality of reporting.”
Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. (2011, neutral): “Additionally, STARD gives only limited guidance on the reporting reliability and agreement coefficients.”
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. (2009, methodology): “Diagnostic tests STARD: Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (5,6).”
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. (2003, background): “A separate background document explains the meaning and rationale of each item and briefly summarises the type and amount of evidence (15).”
The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews (2003, positive): “The recent publication of the STARD document [14] may help to improve the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy.”
d-Dimer for the Exclusion of Acute Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism (2004, methodology): “METHODS We used several sources to guide our review processes, including recommendations by Lijmer and colleagues concerning avoidance of bias in studies of diagnostic tests (6), the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement (7, 8), and guidelines for meta-analyses of observation”
Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels as markers of bacterial infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2004, methodology): “The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy criteria are from [13, 14].”