BMJ 2003;326:3-4 ( 4 January )

Editorials

Reporting diagnostic tests

Complying with STARD is likely to improve the quality of reporting

Education and debate p 41

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

As a clinician, I need high quality evidence about the usefulness, precision, and accuracy of diagnostic tests, and I need it now. Such evidence is rare even for the clinical examination, the most critical component of the diagnostic process. 1 2 The situation is getting worse with the exponential increase of diagnostic tests, most of which have never been evaluated properly and can mislead the diagnostic process. Although rigorous methodological standards in research about diagnostic tests have been applied more rigorously in the past decade, their reporting and methodological quality remain inadequate.2-5 Against this background, the proposal in this issue from the authors of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) for reporting diagnostic research should be applauded (p 41).3

There is a precedent for a favourable effect of such standards in the reporting of randomised trials. Since the development of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)6 and their adoption . . . [Full text of this article]
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Patrick M Bossuyt, Johannes B Reitsma, David E Bruns, Constantine A Gatsonis, Paul P Glasziou, Les M Irwig, Jeroen G Lijmer, David Moher, Drummond Rennie, and Henrica C W de Vet
BMJ 2003 326: 41-44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ