Impact of STARD on reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies in a top Indian Medical Journal: A retrospective survey
- Published
- Accepted
- Subject Areas
- Science and Medical Education, Statistics
- Keywords
- diagnostic studies, STARD, time series analysis, reporting
- Copyright
- © 2017 Yellur et al.
- Licence
- This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
- Cite this article
- 2017. Impact of STARD on reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies in a top Indian Medical Journal: A retrospective survey. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3413v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3413v1
Abstract
Improper reporting of diagnostic studies leads to an incorrect assessment of their clinical performance. STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) checklist was launched in 2003 with the intention of improving reporting quality in diagnostic accuracy studies. The main aim of this study was to check the extent to which published diagnostic accuracy studies follow the 28-item STARD checklist. We conducted a literature survey of diagnostic studies published in Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR) between the years 1995-2013 for the evaluating their reporting quality by checking their adherence to STARD. Relevant studies (N=76) were retrieved from IJMR website and data extraction was performed by two authors simultaneously. A simple pre-post analysis found that there was no overall change in the reporting quality before and after STARD was released. Though some STARD items like description of participant sampling (χ2 = 5.712, p = 0.0169), clinical applicability of study findings (χ2 = 9.704, p = 0.0018) had a significant increase in post-STARD period. To take into account any underlying trend we conducted an interrupted time-series was done. We found a significant increase in the reporting quality after publication of STARD (β3 = 0.215 ± 0.068, p = 0.034). The overall reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies have improved since the introduction of STARD, however, error/defects in many sections remain as before.
Author Comment
This is a submission to PeerJ for review.