The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals
Open Access
- 1 March 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Vol. 89 (3), 261-265
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2004.051862
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the quality of reporting of all diagnostic studies published in five major ophthalmic journals in the year 2002 using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters. Methods: Manual searching was used to identify diagnostic studies published in 2002 in five leading ophthalmic journals, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), and Ophthalmology. The STARD checklist of 25 items and flow chart was used to evaluate the quality of each publication. Results: A total of 16 publications were included (AJO = 5, Archives = 1, BJO = 2, IOVS = 2, and Ophthalmology = 6). More than half of the studies (n = 9) were related to glaucoma diagnosis. Other specialties included retina (n = 4) cornea (n = 2), and neuro-ophthalmology (n = 1). The most common description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity values, published in 13 articles. The number of fully reported items in evaluated studies ranged from eight to 19. Seven studies reported more than 50% of the STARD items. Conclusions: The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiativeBMJ, 2003
- Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000
- Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic TestsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 1999
- Compliance with methodological standards when evaluating ophthalmic diagnostic tests.1999
- Reporting of precision of estimates for diagnostic accuracy: a reviewBMJ, 1999
- Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.1995
- Technology Assessment and Public HealthAnnual Review of Public Health, 1994
- How to evaluate a diagnostic marker test. Lessons from the rise and fall of dexamethasone suppression test.1988
- Intermediate, Indeterminate, and Uninterpretable Diagnostic Test ResultsMedical Decision Making, 1987
- Problems of Spectrum and Bias in Evaluating the Efficacy of Diagnostic TestsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1978