We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: Adherence to STARD 2015.
- Authors
Hong, Patrick Jiho; Korevaar, Daniel A.; McGrath, Trevor A.; Ziai, Hedyeh; Frank, Robert; Alabousi, Mostafa; Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.; McInnes, Matthew D. F.
- Abstract
<bold>Purpose: </bold>To evaluate adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies in imaging journals to the STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015. The secondary objective was to identify differences in reporting for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies.<bold>Materials and Methods: </bold>MEDLINE was searched for diagnostic accuracy studies published in imaging journals in 2016. Studies were evaluated for adherence to STARD 2015 (30 items, including expanded imaging specific subitems). Evaluation for differences in STARD adherence based on modality, impact factor, journal STARD adoption, country, subspecialty area, study design, and journal was performed.<bold>Results: </bold>Adherence (n = 142 studies) was 55% (16.6/30 items, SD = 2.2). Index test description (including imaging-specific subitems) and interpretation were frequently reported (>66% of studies); no important differences in reporting of individual items were identified for studies on MRI. Infrequently reported items (<33% of studies) included some critical to generalizability (study setting and location) and assessment of bias (blinding of assessor of reference standard). New STARD 2015 items: sample size calculation, protocol reporting, and registration were infrequently reported. Higher impact factor (IF) journals reported more items than lower IF journals (17.2 vs. 16 items; P = 0.001). STARD adopter journals reported more items than nonadopters (17.5 vs. 16.4 items; P = 0.01). Adherence varied between journals (P = 0.003). No variability for study design (P = 0.32), subspecialty area (P = 0.75), country (P = 0.28), or imaging modality (P = 0.80) was identified.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>Imaging accuracy studies show moderate adherence to STARD 2015, with only minor differences for studies evaluating MRI. This baseline evaluation will guide targeted interventions towards identified deficiencies and help track progress in reporting.<bold>Level Of Evidence: </bold>1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:523-544.
- Publication
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2018, Vol 47, Issue 2, p523
- ISSN
1053-1807
- Publication type
journal article
- DOI
10.1002/jmri.25797