Editorial

Reporting diagnostic tests

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.3 (Published 4 January 2003)
Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:3

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

Complying with STARD is likely to improve the quality of reporting

  1. Sharon E Straus, assistant professor (sstraus@mtsinai.on.ca)
  1. Toronto General Hospital, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto M5G 2C4, Canada

    Education and debate p 41

    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 …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    BMJ most popular