PofoliaShared via Pofolia

BMJ Open· 2016Q1

STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

Jérémie F. Cohen, Daniël A. Korevaar, Douglas G. Altman, David E. Bruns et al.

Short summary

The STARD 2015 statement provides an updated, elaborated explanation of 30 essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies, aiming to improve transparency and trustworthiness of findings.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • STARD 2015 offers a checklist for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.
  • The guidelines aim to improve completeness and transparency of study reports.
  • An explanation and elaboration document clarifies the rationale for each of the 30 checklist items.
  • Commented examples illustrate appropriate reporting practices.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. BMJ Open, 2016 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Critical Care and Intensive Care MedicineMedicine