Evidence-based obstetric and gynaecologic diagnosis: the STARD checklist for authors, peer-reviewers and readers of test accuracy studies

Kinetic gait analysis in healthy dogs and dogs with osteoarthritis: An evaluation of precision and overlap performance of a pressure-sensitive walkway and the use of symmetry indices

In veterinary practice, a thorough gait examination is essential in the clinical workup of any orthopedic patient, including the large population of dogs with chronic pain as a result of osteoarthritis. The traditional visual gait examination is, however, a subjective discipline, and systems for kinetic gait analysis may potentially offer an objective alternative for gait assessment by the measurement of ground reaction forces. In order to avoid unnecessary testing of patients, a thorough, stepwise evaluation of the diagnostic performance of each system is recommended before clinical use for diagnostic purposes. The aim of the study was to evaluate the Tekscan pressure-sensitive walkway system by assessing precision (agreement between repetitive measurements in individual dogs) and overlap performance (the ability to distinguish dogs with lameness due to osteoarthritis from clinically healthy dogs). Direction of travel over the walkway was investigated as a possible bias. Symmetry indices are commonly used to assess lameness by comparing ground reaction forces across different combinations of limbs in each dog. However, SIs can be calculated in several different ways and specific recommendations for optimal use of individual indices are currently lacking. Therefore the present study also compared indices in order to recommend a specific index preferable for future studies of canine osteoarthritis. Forty-one clinically healthy dogs and 21 dogs with osteoarthritis were included in the study. High precision was demonstrated. The direction of travel over the walkway was excluded as a possible bias. A significant overlap was observed when comparing ground reaction forces measured in dogs with osteoarthritis compared to clinically healthy dogs. In some affected dogs, symmetry indices comparing contralateral limbs differed from clinically healthy dogs, but in general, the overlap performance was insufficient and, consequently, general use of this method for diagnostic purposes in dogs with osteoarthritis cannot be recommended.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the extent to which test accuracy studies published in two leading reproductive medicine journals in the years 1999 and 2004 adhered to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters, and to explore whether the introduction of the STARD statement has led to an improved quality of reporting.

DESIGN

Structured literature search. Articles that reported on the diagnostic performance of a test in comparison with a reference standard were eligible for inclusion. For each article we scored how well the 25 items of the STARD checklist were reported. These items deal with the study question, study participants, study design, test methods, reference standard, statistical methods, reporting of results, and conclusions. We calculated the total number of reported STARD items per article, summary scores for each STARD item, and the average number of reported STARD items per publication year.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Not applicable.

INTERVENTION(S)

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Quality of reporting.

RESULT(S)

We found 24 studies reporting on test accuracy in reproductive medicine in 1999 and 27 studies in 2004. The mean number of reported STARD items for articles published in 1999 was 12.1 +/- 3.3 (range 6.5-20) and 12.4 +/- 3.2 (range 7-17.5) in 2004, after publication of the STARD statement. Overall, less than half of the studies reported adequately on 50% or more of the STARD items. The reporting of individual items showed a wide variation. There was no significant improvement in mean number of reported items for the articles published after the introduction of the STARD statement.

CONCLUSION(S)

Authors of test accuracy studies in the two leading fertility journals poorly report the design, conduct, methodology, and statistical analysis of their study. Strict adherence to the STARD guidelines should be encouraged.