Quality of reporting of test accuracy studies in reproductive medicine: impact of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative

Emergency Ultrasound Literature and Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Criteria

BACKGROUND

Given the wide usage of emergency point-of-care ultrasound (EUS) among emergency physicians (EPs), rigorous study surrounding its accuracy is essential. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria were established to ensure robust reporting methodology for diagnostic studies. Adherence to the STARD criteria among EUS diagnostic studies has yet to be reported.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to evaluate a body of EUS literature shortly after STARD publication for its baseline adherence to the STARD criteria.

METHODS

EUS studies in 5 emergency medicine journals from 2005-2010 were evaluated for their adherence to the STARD criteria. Manuscripts were selected for inclusion if they reported original research and described the use of 1 of 10 diagnostic ultrasound modalities designated as "core emergency ultrasound applications" in the 2008 American College of Emergency Physicians Ultrasound Guidelines. Literature search identified 307 studies; of these, 45 met inclusion criteria for review.

RESULTS

The median STARD score was 15 (interquartile range [IQR] 12-17), representing 60% of the 25 total STARD criteria. The median STARD score among articles that reported diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than those that did not report accuracy (17 [IQR 15-19] vs. 11 [IQR 9-13], respectively; p < 0.0001). Seventy-one percent of articles met ≥50% of the STARD criteria (56-84%) and 4% met >80% of the STARD criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant opportunities exist to improve methodological reporting of EUS research. Increased adherence to the STARD criteria among diagnostic EUS studies will improve reporting and improve our ability to compare outcomes.

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Assessment of Adherence of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Published in Radiology Journals to STARD Statement Indexed in Web of Science, PubMed & Scopus in 2015

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies published in radiology journals, which were indexed in different databases with the STARD standard guide 2015.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The different databases were searched in order to find suitable journals. Among 84 English radiology journals, 31 journal were selected randomly. In order to find the articles, the same search fields and search terms were used. All the items of STARD checklist 2015 were considered to take in to account in assessment of the adherence of the articles to the standard. Total STARD score for each article was calculated by summing the number of reported items.

RESULTS

151 articles from 31 journals were evaluated to check the adherence of their structure to STARD standard. Based on the results the articles had the most adherence with the STARD standard in material and method part the item of participants, discussion section, and title or abstract. On the contrary, most of the articles were not adhere to other information which are new items in STARD 2015. Among radiology diagnostic accuracy articles only one article (0.66%) had a registration number and 10 (6.62%) articles had a link to full study protocol. More than 60% of articles adhered to the ethics (69.54%) and source of support (63.58%).

CONCLUSIONS

The radiology diagnostic accuracy studies were adhered to 69.45% STARD items, which shows an improvement in reporting the diagnostic accuracy articles in comparison to previous studies.

Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Effective study identification is essential for conducting health research, developing clinical guidance and health policy and supporting health-care decision-making. Methodological search filters (combinations of search terms to capture a specific study design) can assist in searching to achieve this.

OBJECTIVES

This project investigated the methods used to assess the performance of methodological search filters, the information that searchers require when choosing search filters and how that information could be better provided.

METHODS

Five literature reviews were undertaken in 2010/11: search filter development and testing; comparison of search filters; decision-making in choosing search filters; diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study methods; and decision-making in choosing diagnostic tests. We conducted interviews and a questionnaire with experienced searchers to learn what information assists in the choice of search filters and how filters are used. These investigations informed the development of various approaches to gathering and reporting search filter performance data. We acknowledge that there has been a regrettable delay between carrying out the project, including the searches, and the publication of this report, because of serious illness of the principal investigator.

RESULTS

The development of filters most frequently involved using a reference standard derived from hand-searching journals. Most filters were validated internally only. Reporting of methods was generally poor. Sensitivity, precision and specificity were the most commonly reported performance measures and were presented in tables. Aspects of DTA study methods are applicable to search filters, particularly in the development of the reference standard. There is limited evidence on how clinicians choose between diagnostic tests. No published literature was found on how searchers select filters. Interviewing and questioning searchers via a questionnaire found that filters were not appropriate for all tasks but were predominantly used to reduce large numbers of retrieved records and to introduce focus. The Inter Technology Appraisal Support Collaboration (InterTASC) Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG) Search Filters Resource was most frequently mentioned by both groups as the resource consulted to select a filter. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review filters, in particular the Cochrane RCT and the McMaster Hedges filters, were most frequently mentioned. The majority indicated that they used different filters depending on the requirement for sensitivity or precision. Over half of the respondents used the filters available in databases. Interviewees used various approaches when using and adapting search filters. Respondents suggested that the main factors that would make choosing a filter easier were the availability of critical appraisals and more detailed performance information. Provenance and having the filter available in a central storage location were also important.

LIMITATIONS

The questionnaire could have been shorter and could have included more multiple choice questions, and the reviews of filter performance focused on only four study designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Search filter studies should use a representative reference standard and explicitly report methods and results. Performance measures should be presented systematically and clearly. Searchers find filters useful in certain circumstances but expressed a need for more user-friendly performance information to aid filter choice. We suggest approaches to use, adapt and report search filter performance. Future work could include research around search filters and performance measures for study designs not addressed here, exploration of alternative methods of displaying performance results and numerical synthesis of performance comparison results.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and Medical Research Council-NIHR Methodology Research Programme (grant number G0901496).

Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles

Although biomarkers are perceived as highly relevant for future clinical practice, few biomarkers reach clinical utility for several reasons. Among them, poor reporting of studies is one of the major problems. To aid improvement, reporting guidelines like REMARK for tumour marker prognostic (TMP) studies were introduced several years ago. The aims of this project were to assess whether reporting quality of TMP-studies improved in comparison to a previously conducted study assessing reporting quality of TMP-studies (PRE-study) and to assess whether articles citing REMARK (citing group) are better reported, in comparison to articles not citing REMARK (not-citing group). For the POST-study, recent articles citing and not citing REMARK (53 each) were identified in selected journals through systematic literature search and evaluated in same way as in the PRE-study. Ten of the 20 items of the REMARK checklist were evaluated and used to define an overall score of reporting quality. The observed overall scores were 53.4% (range: 10%-90%) for the PRE-study, 57.7% (range: 20%-100%) for the not-citing group and 58.1% (range: 30%-100%) for the citing group of the POST-study. While there is no difference between the two groups of the POST-study, the POST-study shows a slight but not relevant improvement in reporting relative to the PRE-study. Not all the articles of the citing group, cited REMARK appropriately. Irrespective of whether REMARK was cited, the overall score was slightly higher for articles published in journals requesting adherence to REMARK than for those published in journals not requesting it: 59.9% versus 51.9%, respectively. Several years after the introduction of REMARK, many key items of TMP-studies are still very poorly reported. A combined effort is needed from authors, editors, reviewers and methodologists to improve the current situation. Good reporting is not just nice to have but is essential for any research to be useful.

Methodology and reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies of automated perimetry in glaucoma: evaluation using a standardised approach

PURPOSE

To evaluate methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies of perimetry in glaucoma and to determine whether there had been any improvement since the publication of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review of English language articles published between 1993 and 2013 reporting the diagnostic accuracy of perimetry in glaucoma. Articles were appraised for methodological quality using the 14-item Quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) and evaluated for quality of reporting by applying the STARD checklist.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight articles were appraised. Overall methodological quality of these studies was moderate with a median number of QUADAS items rated as 'yes' equal to nine (out of a maximum of 14) (IQR 7-10). The studies were often poorly reported; median score of STARD items fully reported was 11 out of 25 (IQR 10-14). A comparison of the studies published in 10-year periods before and after the publication of the STARD checklist in 2003 found quality of reporting had not substantially improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies of perimetry is sub-optimal and appears not to have improved substantially following the development of the STARD reporting guidance. This observation is consistent with previous studies in ophthalmology and in other medical specialities.

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.

STUDY SELECTION

English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).

DATA EXTRACTION

Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.

RESULTS

101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

A survey of the awareness, knowledge, policies and views of veterinary journal Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines for publication of research

BACKGROUND

Wider adoption of reporting guidelines by veterinary journals could improve the quality of published veterinary research. The aims of this study were to assess the knowledge and views of veterinary Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines, identify the policies of their journals, and determine their information needs. Editors-in-Chief of 185 journals on the contact list for the International Association of Veterinary Editors (IAVE) were surveyed in April 2012 using an online questionnaire which contained both closed and open questions.

RESULTS

The response rate was 36.8% (68/185). Thirty-six of 68 editors (52.9%) stated they knew what a reporting guideline was before receiving the questionnaire. Editors said they had found out about reporting guidelines primarily through articles in other journals, via the Internet and through their own journal. Twenty of 57 respondents (35.1%) said their journal referred to reporting guidelines in its instructions to authors. CONSORT, REFLECT, and ARRIVE were the most frequently cited. Forty-four of 68 respondents (68.2%) believed that reporting guidelines should be adopted by all refereed veterinary journals. Qualitative analysis of the open questions revealed that lack of knowledge, fear, resistance to change, and difficulty in implementation were perceived as barriers to the adoption of reporting guidelines by journals. Editors suggested that reporting guidelines be promoted through communication and education of the veterinary community, with roles for the IAVE and universities. Many respondents believed a consensus policy on guideline implementation was needed for veterinary journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Further communication and education about reporting guidelines for editors, authors and reviewers has the potential to increase their adoption by veterinary journals in the future.

Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD

BACKGROUND

Poor reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies impedes an objective appraisal of the clinical performance of diagnostic tests. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement, first published in 2003, aims to improve the reporting quality of such studies.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate to which extent published diagnostic accuracy studies adhere to the 25-item STARD checklist, whether the reporting quality has improved after STARD's launch and whether there are any factors associated with adherence.

STUDY SELECTION

We performed a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Methodology Register of the Cochrane Library for studies that primarily aimed to examine the reporting quality of articles on diagnostic accuracy studies in humans by evaluating adherence to STARD. Study selection was performed in duplicate; data were extracted by one author and verified by the second author.

FINDINGS

We included 16 studies, analysing 1496 articles in total. Three studies investigated adherence in a general sample of diagnostic accuracy studies; the others did so in a specific field of research. The overall mean number of items reported varied from 9.1 to 14.3 between 13 evaluations that evaluated all 25 STARD items. Six studies quantitatively compared post-STARD with pre-STARD articles. Combining these results in a random-effects meta-analysis revealed a modest but significant increase in adherence after STARD's introduction (mean difference 1.41 items (95% CI 0.65 to 2.18)).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies was consistently moderate, at least through halfway the 2000s. Our results suggest a small improvement in the years after the introduction of STARD. Adherence to STARD should be further promoted among researchers, editors and peer reviewers.

Publication guidelines need widespread adoption

OBJECTIVE

During the past two decades teams of researchers and editors have developed a variety of publishing guidelines to improve the quality of published research reports. Journals and editorial groups have adopted many of these guidelines. Whereas some guidelines are widely used, others have yet to be generally applied, thwarting attainment of consistent reporting among published research reports. The aim of this study is to describe the development and adoption of general publication guidelines for various study designs, provide examples of guidelines adapted for specific topics, and recommend next steps.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed generic guidelines for reporting research results and surveyed their use in PubMed and Science Citation Index.

RESULTS

Existing guidelines cover a broad spectrum of research designs, but there are still gaps in topics and use. Appropriate next steps include increasing use of available guidelines and their adoption among journals, educating peer reviewers on their use, and incorporating guideline use into the curriculum of medical, nursing, and public health schools.

CONCLUSION

Wider adoption of existing guidelines should result in research that is increasingly reported in a standardized, consistent manner.

The quality of reporting of primary test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology: application of the STARD criteria

Background

In obstetrics and gynaecology there has been a rapid growth in the development of new tests and primary studies of their accuracy. It is imperative that such studies are reported with transparency allowing the detection of any potential bias that may invalidate the results. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of reporting in diagnostic test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy - STARD checklist.

Methods

The included studies of ten systematic reviews were assessed for compliance with each of the reporting criteria. Using appropriate statistical tests we investigated whether there was an improvement in reporting quality since the introduction of the STARD checklist, whether a correlation existed between study sample size, country of origin of study and reporting quality.

Results

A total of 300 studies were included (195 for obstetrics, 105 for gynaecology). The overall reporting quality of included studies to the STARD criteria was poor. Obstetric studies reported adequately > 50% of the time for 62.1% (18/29) of the items while gynaecologic studies did the same 51.7% (15/29). There was a greater mean compliance with STARD criteria in the included obstetric studies than the gynaecological (p < 0.0001). There was a positive correlation, in both obstetrics (p < 0.0001) and gynaecology (p = 0.0123), between study sample size and reporting quality. No correlation between geographical area of publication and compliance with the reporting criteria could be demonstrated.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of papers in obstetrics and gynaecology is improving. This may be due to initiatives such as the STARD checklist as well as historical progress in awareness among authors of the need to accurately report studies. There is however considerable scope for further improvement.

Improved reporting of statistical design and analysis: guidelines, education, and editorial policies

A majority of original articles published in biomedical journals include some form of statistical analysis. Unfortunately, many of the articles contain errors in statistical design and/or analysis. These errors are worrisome, as the misuse of statistics jeopardizes the process of scientific discovery and the accumulation of scientific knowledge. To help avoid these errors and improve statistical reporting, four approaches are suggested: (1) development of guidelines for statistical reporting that could be adopted by all journals, (2) improvement in statistics curricula in biomedical research programs with an emphasis on hands-on teaching by biostatisticians, (3) expansion and enhancement of biomedical science curricula in statistics programs, and (4) increased participation of biostatisticians in the peer review process along with the adoption of more rigorous journal editorial policies regarding statistics. In this chapter, we provide an overview of these issues with emphasis to the field of molecular biology and highlight the need for continuing efforts on all fronts.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic studies in obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive medicine

Background

In clinical practice a diagnosis is based on a combination of clinical history, physical examination and additional diagnostic tests. At present, studies on diagnostic research often report the accuracy of tests without taking into account the information already known from history and examination. Due to this lack of information, together with variations in design and quality of studies, conventional meta-analyses based on these studies will not show the accuracy of the tests in real practice. By using individual patient data (IPD) to perform meta-analyses, the accuracy of tests can be assessed in relation to other patient characteristics and allows the development or evaluation of diagnostic algorithms for individual patients.

In this study we will examine these potential benefits in four clinical diagnostic problems in the field of gynaecology, obstetrics and reproductive medicine.

Methods/design

Based on earlier systematic reviews for each of the four clinical problems, studies are considered for inclusion. The first authors of the included studies will be invited to participate and share their original data. After assessment of validity and completeness the acquired datasets are merged. Based on these data, a series of analyses will be performed, including a systematic comparison of the results of the IPD meta-analysis with those of a conventional meta-analysis, development of multivariable models for clinical history alone and for the combination of history, physical examination and relevant diagnostic tests and development of clinical prediction rules for the individual patients. These will be made accessible for clinicians.

Discussion

The use of IPD meta-analysis will allow evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests in relation to other relevant information. Ultimately, this could increase the efficiency of the diagnostic work-up, e.g. by reducing the need for invasive tests and/or improving the accuracy of the diagnostic workup. This study will assess whether these benefits of IPD meta-analysis over conventional meta-analysis can be exploited and will provide a framework for future IPD meta-analyses in diagnostic and prognostic research.

Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: no change since STARD statement publication--before-and-after study

PURPOSE

To determine the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies before and after the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement publication and to determine whether there is a difference in the quality of reporting by comparing STARD (endorsing) and non-STARD (nonendorsing) journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Diagnostic accuracy studies were identified by hand searching six STARD and six non-STARD journals for 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005. Diagnostic accuracy studies (n = 240) were assessed by using a checklist of 13 of 25 STARD items. The change in the mean total score on the modified STARD checklist was evaluated with analysis of covariance. The change in proportion of times that each individual STARD item was reported before and after STARD statement publication was evaluated (chi(2) tests for linear trend).

RESULTS

With mean total score as dependent factor, analysis of covariance showed that the interaction between the two independent factors (STARD or non-STARD journal and year of publication) was not significant (F = 0.664, df = 3, partial eta(2) = 0.009, P = .58). Additionally, the frequency with which individual items on the STARD checklist were reported before and after STARD statement publication has remained relatively constant, with little difference between STARD and non-STARD journals.

CONCLUSION

After publication of the STARD statement in 2003, the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies remained similar to pre-STARD statement publication levels, and there was no meaningful difference (ie, one additional item on the checklist of 13 of 25 STARD items being reported) in the quality of reporting between those journals that published the STARD statement and those that did not.