ArticlePloS one2017
STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the reproducibility of the updated Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (STARD 2015) in a set of 106 studies included in a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review of imaging tests for diagnosing manifest glaucoma.
methodsOne senior rater with DTA methodological and clinical expertise used STARD 2015 on all studies, and each of three raters with different training profiles assessed about a third of the studies.
resultsRaw agreement was very good or almost perfect between the senior rater and an ophthalmology resident with DTA methods training, acceptable with a clinical rater with little DTA methods training, and only moderate with a pharmacology researcher with general, but not DTA, systematic review training and no clinical expertise. The relationship between adherence with STARD 2015 and methodological quality with QUADAS 2 was only partial and difficult to investigate, suggesting that raters used substantial context knowledge in risk of bias assessment.
conclusionsSTARD 2015 proved to be reproducible in this specific research field, provided that both clinical and DTA methodological expertise are achieved through training of its users.
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.