ArticleKorean journal of radiology
Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?
Article in Korean journal of radiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adherence to STARD guidelines in miRNA diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?European radiology · 2023Article
- Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Performance of the Modified Korean Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System for Thyroid Malignancy: A Multicenter Validation Study.Korean journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Histogram analysis of arterial spin labeling perfusion data to determine the human papillomavirus status of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas.Neuroradiology · 2021Article
- Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Laboratory Medicine: Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2020Article
- Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement.European radiology · 2020Article
- Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often?European radiology · 2019Article
- Medical Diagnostic Tests: A Review of Test Anatomy, Phases, and Statistical Treatment of Data.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2019Review
- Article
- Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal.Korean journal of radiologyArticle
- Age of Data in Contemporary Research Articles Published in Representative General Radiology Journals.Korean journal of radiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the rate with which diagnostic test accuracy studies that are published in a general radiology journal adhere to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015, and to explore the relationship between adherence rate and citation rate while avoiding confounding by journal factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll eligible diagnostic test accuracy studies that were published in the Korean Journal of Radiology in 2011-2015 were identified. Five reviewers assessed each article for yes/no compliance with 27 of the 30 STARD 2015 checklist items (items 28, 29, and 30 were excluded). The total STARD score (number of fulfilled STARD items) was calculated. The score of the 15 STARD items that related directly to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was also calculated. The number of times each article was cited (as indicated by the Web of Science) after publication until March 2016 and the article exposure time (time in months between publication and March 2016) were extracted.
resultsSixty-three articles were analyzed. The mean (range) total and QUADAS-2-related STARD scores were 20.0 (14.5-25) and 11.4 (7-15), respectively. The mean citation number was 4 (0-21). Citation number did not associate significantly with either STARD score after accounting for exposure time (total score: correlation coefficient = 0.154, p = 0.232; QUADAS-2-related score: correlation coefficient = 0.143, p = 0.266).
conclusionThe degree of adherence to STARD 2015 was moderate for this journal, indicating that there is room for improvement. When adjusted for exposure time, the degree of adherence did not affect the citation rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.