Family Practice Vol. 21, No. 1, 4-10
© Oxford University Press 2004, all rights reserved.
Article |
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Correspondence to Patrick M Bossuyt, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands; E-mail: stard{at}amc.uva.nl
Received 14 July 2003; Accepted 8 September 2003.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HCW, for the STARD group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Family Practice 2004; 21: 4–10.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAppendixReferences |
|---|
Objective. Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results.
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 organizations shortened this list during a 2-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 recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and/or the reference standard.
Conclusions. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.
Keywords. Checklist, diagnostic accuracy, flow diagram, reporting, sensitivity and specificity.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAppendixReferences |
|---|
The world of diagnostic tests is highly dynamic. New tests are developed at a fast rate, and the technology of existing tests is continuously being improved. Exaggerated and biased results from poorly designed and reported diagnostic studies can trigger their premature dissemination and lead physicians into making incorrect treatment decisions. A rigorous evaluation process of diagnostic tests before introduction into clinical practice could not only reduce the number of unwanted clinical consequences related to misleading estimates of test accuracy, but also limit health care costs by preventing unnecessary testing. Studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of a test are a vital part of this evaluation process.1–3
In studies of diagnostic accuracy, the outcomes from one or more tests under evaluation are compared with outcomes from the reference standard, both measured in individuals who are suspected of having the condition of interest. The term test refers to any method for obtaining additional information on a patient's health status. It includes information from history and physical examination, laboratory tests, imaging tests, function tests and histopathology. The condition of interest, or target condition, can refer to a particular disease or to any other identifiable condition that may prompt clinical actions, such as further diagnostic testing, or the initiation, modification or termination of treatment. In this framework, the reference standard is considered to be the best available method for establishing the presence or absence of the condition of interest. The reference standard can be a single method, or a combination of methods, to establish the presence of the target condition. It can include laboratory tests, imaging tests and pathology, but also dedicated clinical follow-up of participants. The term accuracy refers to the amount of agreement between the information from the test under evaluation, referred to as the index test, and the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy can be expressed in many ways, including sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio and the area under a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve.4–6
Several potential threats to the internal and external validity of a study of diagnostic accuracy exist. A survey of studies of diagnostic accuracy published in four major medical journals between 1978 and 1993 revealed that the methodological quality was mediocre at best.7 However, assessments were hampered because many reports lacked information on key elements of design, conduct and analysis of diagnostic studies.7 The absence of essential information about the design and conduct of diagnostic studies has been confirmed by authors of meta-analyses.8,9 As in any other type of research, flaws in study design can lead to biased results. One report showed that diagnostic studies with specific design features are associated with biased, optimistic estimates of diagnostic accuracy compared with studies without such deficiencies.10
At the 1999 Cochrane Colloquium meeting in Rome, the Cochrane Diagnostic and Screening Test Methods Working Group discussed the low methodological quality and substandard reporting of diagnostic test evaluations. The Working Group felt that the first step towards correcting these problems was to improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic studies. Following the successful CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) initiative,11–13 the Working Group aimed to develop a checklist of items that should be included in the report of a study of diagnostic accuracy.
The objective of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative is to improve the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. Complete and accurate reporting allows the reader to detect the potential for bias in the study (internal validity) and to assess the generalizability and applicability of the results (external validity).
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAppendixReferences |
|---|
The STARD steering committee (see Appendix for membership) started with an extensive search to identify publications on the conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies. This search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and the methodological database from the Cochrane Collaboration up to July 2000. In addition, the members of the steering committee examined reference lists of retrieved articles, searched personal files and contacted other experts in the field of diagnostic research. They reviewed all relevant publications and extracted an extended list of potential checklist items.
Subsequently, the STARD steering committee convened a 2-day consensus meeting for invited experts from the following interest groups: researchers, editors, methodologists and professional organizations. The aim of the conference was to reduce the extended list of potential items, where appropriate, and to discuss the optimum format and phrasing of the checklist. The selection of items to retain was based on evidence whenever possible.
The meeting format consisted of a mixture of small group sessions and plenary sessions. Each small group focused on a group of related items from the list. The suggestions of the small groups were then discussed in plenary sessions. Overnight, a first draft of the STARD checklist was assembled based on suggestions from the small groups and additional remarks from the plenary sessions. All meeting attendees discussed this version the next day and made additional changes. The members of the STARD group could suggest further changes through a later round of comments by E-mail.
Potential users field-tested the conference version of the checklist and flow diagram, and additional comments were collected. This version was placed on the CONSORT website with a call for comments. The STARD steering committee discussed all comments and assembled the final checklist.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAppendixReferences |
|---|
The search for published guidelines for diagnostic research yielded 33 checklists. Based on these published guidelines and on input of steering and STARD group members, the steering committee assembled a list of 75 items. During the consensus meeting on 16–17 September 2000, participants consolidated and eliminated items to form the 25-item checklist. Conference members made major revisions to the phrasing and format of the checklist.
The STARD group received valuable comments and remarks during the various stages of evaluation after the conference, which resulted in the version of the STARD checklist that appears in Table 1.
|
Figure 1 shows a flow diagram that provides information about the method of recruitment of patients (e.g. based on a consecutive series of patients with specific symptoms, or of cases and controls), the order of test execution and the number of patients undergoing the test under evaluation (index test) and the reference test. We provide one prototypical flow chart that reflects the most commonly employed design in diagnostic research. Examples that reflect other designs appear on the STARD website (www.consort-statement.org\stardstatement.htm)
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAppendixReferences |
|---|
The purpose of the STARD initiative is to improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic studies. The items in the checklist and the flow chart can help authors to describe essential elements of the design and conduct of their study, the execution of tests and their results.
We arranged the items under the usual headings of a medical research article, but this is not intended to dictate the order in which they have to appear within an article.
The guiding principle in the development of the STARD checklist was to select items that would help readers to judge the potential for bias in the study and to appraise the applicability of the findings. Two other general considerations shaped the content and format of the checklist. First, the STARD group believes that one general checklist for studies of diagnostic accuracy, rather than different checklists for each speciality, is likely to be more widely disseminated and perhaps accepted by authors, peer reviewers and journal editors. Although the evaluation of an imaging test differs from that of a test in the laboratory, we felt that these differences were more of degree than of kind. The second consideration was the development of a checklist specifically aimed at studies of diagnostic accuracy. We did not include general issues in the reporting of research findings, such as the recommendations contained in the ‘uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals’.14
Wherever possible, the STARD group based the decision to include an item on evidence linking the item to biased estimates (internal validity) or to variations in measures of diagnostic accuracy (external validity). The evidence varied from narrative articles that explained theoretical principles and papers that presented the results from statistical modelling, to empirical evidence derived from diagnostic studies. For several items, the evidence was rather limited.
A separate background document explains the meaning and rationale of each item and briefly summarizes the type and amount of evidence.15 This background document should enhance the use, understanding and dissemination of the STARD checklist.
The STARD group put considerable effort into the development of a flow diagram for diagnostic studies. A flow diagram has the potential to communicate vital information about the design of a study and the flow of participants in a transparent manner.16 A comparable flow diagram has become an essential element in the CONSORT standards for reporting of randomized trials.12,16 The flow diagram could be even more essential in diagnostic studies, in view of the variety of designs employed in diagnostic research. Flow diagrams in the reports of studies of diagnostic accuracy indicate the process of sampling and selecting participants (external validity), the flow of participants in relation to the timing and outcomes of tests, the number of participants who do not receive either the index test or the reference standard, or both (potential for verification bias17–19), and the number of patients at each stage of the study, which provides the correct denominator for proportions (internal consistency).
The STARD group plans to measure the impact of the statement on the quality of published reports on diagnostic accuracy using a before-and-after assessment.13 Updates of the STARD initiative's documents will be provided when new evidence on sources of bias or variability becomes available. We welcome any comments, whether on content or form, to improve the current version.
|
Appendix |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAppendixReferences |
|---|
Members of the STARD Steering Committee
Patrick Bossuyt
Academic Medical Center, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Constantine Gatsonis
Brown University, Center for Statistical Sciences, Providence, RI, USA
Les Irwig
Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia
David Moher
Chalmers Research Group Ottawa, ON, Canada
Riekie de Vet
Free University, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
David Bruns
Clinical Chemistry, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Paul Glasziou
Mayne Medical School, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Herston, Australia
Jeroen Lijmer
Academic Medical Center, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Drummond Rennie
Journal of the American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, USA
Members of the STARD group
Doug Altman
Institute of Health Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK
Colin Begg
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, New York, NY, USA
Harry Büller
Academic Medical Center, Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Frank Davidoff
Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Paul Dieppe
Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Rijk van Ginkel
Academic Medical Center, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Gordon Guyatt
McMaster University, Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Richard Horton
The Lancet, London, UK
Jos Kleijnen
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination York, UK
Erik Magid
Amager Hospital, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Copenhagen, Denmark
Matthew McQueen
Hamilton Civic Hospitals, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Hamilton, ON, Canada
John Overbeke
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Anthony Proto
Radiology, Editorial Office, Richmond, VA, USA
Stuart Barton
British Medical Journal, BMA House, London, UK
William Black
Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Lebanon, NH, USA
Gregory Campbell
US FDA, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Rockville, MD, USA
Jon Deeks
Institute of Health Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK
Kenneth Fleming
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
Afina Glas
Academic Medical Center, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
James Hanley
McGill University, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Montreal, QC, Canada
Myriam Hunink
Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Andre Knottnerus
Maastricht University, Netherlands School of Primary Care Research, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Barbara McNeil
Harvard Medical School, Department of Health Care Policy, Boston, MA, USA
Andrew Onderdonk
Channing Laboratory, Boston, MA, USA
Christopher Price
St Bartholomew's–Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
Hans Reitsma
Academic Medical Center, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
David Sackett
Trout Research and Education Centre, Irish Lake, ON, Canada
Harold Sox
Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Stephan Walter
McMaster University, Clinical Epidemiology and
Biostatistics, Hamilton, ON, Canada Figure 1 Prototypical flow diagram of a diagnostic accuracy study
Gerard Sanders
Academic Medical Center, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sharon Straus
Mt. Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This initiative to improve the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy was supported by a large number of people around the globe who commented on earlier versions. Financial support to convene the STARD group was provided in part by the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board, Amstelveen, The Netherlands; the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry, Milano, Italy; the Medical Research Council's Health Services Research Collaboration, Bristol, UK; and the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAppendixReferences |
|---|
1 Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, Haynes RB, Drummond M. A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. Can Med Assoc J 1986; 134: 587–594.[Abstract]
2 Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 88–94.
3 Kent DL, Larson EB. Disease, level of impact, and quality of research methods. Three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1992; 27: 245–254.[ISI][Medline]
4 Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AI, Greenland P. Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures. Principles and applications. Ann Intern Med 1981; 94: 557–592.[Medline]
5 Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. The selection of diagnostic tests. In Sackett D (ed.). Clinical Epidemiology, 2nd edn. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1991: 47–57.
6 Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978; 8: 283–298.[ISI][Medline]
7 Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. J Am Med Assoc 1995; 274: 645–651.[Abstract]
8 Nelemans PJ, Leiner T, de Vet HCW, van Engelshoven JMA. Peripheral arterial disease: meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of MR angiography. Radiology 2000; 217: 105–114.
9 Devries SO, Hunink MGM, Polak JF. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves as a technique for meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of duplex ultrasonography in peripheral arterial disease. Acad Radiol 1996; 3: 361–369.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
10 Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. J Am Med Assoc 1999; 282: 1061–1066.
11 Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 276: 637–639.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
12 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 285: 1987–1991.
13 Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials. A comparative before-and-after evaluation. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 285: 1992–1995.
14 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. J Am Med Assoc 1997; 277: 927–934. Also available at: www.acponline.org.[Abstract]
15 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003; 49: 7–18.
16 Egger M, Jüni P, Barlett C. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 285: 1996–1999.
17 Knottnerus JA. The effects of disease verification and referral on the relationship between symptoms and diseases. Med Decis Making 1987; 7: 139–148.
18 Panzer RJ, Suchman AL, Griner PF. Workup bias in prediction research. Med Decis Making 1987; 7: 115–119.
19 Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987; 6: 411–423.[ISI][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S D Brealey, A J Scally, S Hahn, and C Godfrey Evidence of reference standard related bias in studies of plain radiograph reading performance: a meta-regression Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2007; 80(954): 406 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Maheshwari, P. Fowler, and S. Bhattacharya Assessment of ovarian reserve--should we perform tests of ovarian reserve routinely? Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2729 - 2735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||