%0 Journal Article %1 Bossuyt2003 %A Bossuyt, Patrick M %A Reitsma, Johannes B %A Bruns, David E %A Gatsonis, Constantine A %A Glasziou, Paul P %A Irwig, Les M %A Lijmer, Jeroen G %A Moher, David %A Rennie, Drummond %A de Vet, Henrica C W %D 2003 %J BMJ (Clinical research ed.) %K Algorithms Bias(Epidemiology) ClinicalTrialsasTopic ClinicalTrialsasTopic:standards DiagnosticTechniquesandProcedures DiagnosticTechniquesandProcedures:standards GuidelinesasTopic Publishing Publishing:standards ResearchDesign ResearchDesign:standards %N 7379 %P 41-4 %T Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. %U http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1124931&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract %V 326 %X OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study, and to evaluate a study's generalisability. 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 organisations shortened this list during a two 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 patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the STARD checklist and flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public. %@ 1756-1833; 0959-535X

@article{Bossuyt2003, abstract = {OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study, and to evaluate a study's generalisability. 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 organisations shortened this list during a two 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 patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the STARD checklist and flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.}, added-at = {2023-02-03T11:44:35.000+0100}, author = {Bossuyt, Patrick M and Reitsma, Johannes B and Bruns, David E and Gatsonis, Constantine A and Glasziou, Paul P and Irwig, Les M and Lijmer, Jeroen G and Moher, David and Rennie, Drummond and de Vet, Henrica C W}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2f997159684e267508f989f113876a5fa/jepcastel}, city = {Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, Netherlands. stard@amc.uva.nl}, interhash = {f60b3c7527dcf0ad10557548c52a0c3b}, intrahash = {f997159684e267508f989f113876a5fa}, isbn = {1756-1833; 0959-535X}, issn = {1756-1833}, journal = {BMJ (Clinical research ed.)}, keywords = {Algorithms Bias(Epidemiology) ClinicalTrialsasTopic ClinicalTrialsasTopic:standards DiagnosticTechniquesandProcedures DiagnosticTechniquesandProcedures:standards GuidelinesasTopic Publishing Publishing:standards ResearchDesign ResearchDesign:standards}, month = {1}, note = {7132<m:linebreak></m:linebreak>LR: 20120306; JID: 8900488; CIN: BMJ. 2003 Mar 15;326(7389):601. PMID: 12637417; CIN: BMJ. 2003 Jan 4;326(7379):3-4. PMID: 12511433; RF: 19; OID: NLM: PMC1124931; ppublish;<m:linebreak></m:linebreak>Publicació; Proves diagnòstiques}, number = 7379, pages = {41-4}, pmid = {12511463}, timestamp = {2023-02-03T11:44:35.000+0100}, title = {Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.}, url = {http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1124931&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract}, volume = 326, year = 2003 }