Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Patrick M Bossuyt a Department of
Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center,
University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam,
Netherlands, b Clinical Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
VA 22903-0757, USA, c Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University,
Providence, RI 02912, USA, d School of
Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4006, Australia, e Department of Public Health and Community
Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia, f Thomas
C Chalmer's Center for Systematic Reviews, Children's Hospital of
Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON K1H 8LI, Canada, g JAMA, 515 N State St,
Chicago, IL 60610, USA, h Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU
University Medical Center, 1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands
Correspondence to: P Bossuyt
stard{at}amc.uva.nl
Objective:
To improve the accuracy and completeness
of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to
assess the potential for bias in a study, and to evaluate a study's generalisability.
Methods:
The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify
publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic
studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list.
Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two day consensus meeting, with the goal
of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of
diagnostic accuracy.
Results:
The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from
which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25 item checklist, by
using evidence, whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order
of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test
under evaluation and the reference standard, or both.
Conclusions:
Evaluation of research depends on
complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the STARD
checklist and flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of
diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians,
researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.