ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2018
Assessment of Adherence of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Published in Radiology Journals to STARD Statement Indexed in Web of Science, PubMed & Scopus in 2015.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Adherence to Complication Reporting for Randomized Controlled Trials Contained in Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2023Article
- Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?European radiology · 2023Article
- Assessment of the Adherence of Radiologists in Reporting the Ovarian Cysts to the 2010 Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Guidelines.Journal of medical ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies published in radiology journals, which were indexed in different databases with the STARD standard guide 2015. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe different databases were searched in order to find suitable journals. Among 84 English radiology journals, 31 journal were selected randomly. In order to find the articles, the same search fields and search terms were used. All the items of STARD checklist 2015 were considered to take in to account in assessment of the adherence of the articles to the standard. Total STARD score for each article was calculated by summing the number of reported items.
results151 articles from 31 journals were evaluated to check the adherence of their structure to STARD standard. Based on the results the articles had the most adherence with the STARD standard in material and method part the item of participants, discussion section, and title or abstract. On the contrary, most of the articles were not adhere to other information which are new items in STARD 2015. Among radiology diagnostic accuracy articles only one article (0.66%) had a registration number and 10 (6.62%) articles had a link to full study protocol. More than 60% of articles adhered to the ethics (69.54%) and source of support (63.58%).
conclusionsThe radiology diagnostic accuracy studies were adhered to 69.45% STARD items, which shows an improvement in reporting the diagnostic accuracy articles in comparison to previous studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30320035PMC6169121What 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.