ArticleThe Journal of emergency medicine2020
Emergency Ultrasound Literature and Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Criteria.
Article in The Journal of emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 Guidelines in Acute Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- Applications of artificial intelligence in magnetic resonance imaging of primary pediatric cancers: a scoping review and CLAIM score assessment.Japanese journal of radiology · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the wide usage of emergency point-of-care ultrasound (EUS) among emergency physicians (EPs), rigorous study surrounding its accuracy is essential. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria were established to ensure robust reporting methodology for diagnostic studies. Adherence to the STARD criteria among EUS diagnostic studies has yet to be reported.
objectivesOur objective was to evaluate a body of EUS literature shortly after STARD publication for its baseline adherence to the STARD criteria.
methodsEUS studies in 5 emergency medicine journals from 2005-2010 were evaluated for their adherence to the STARD criteria. Manuscripts were selected for inclusion if they reported original research and described the use of 1 of 10 diagnostic ultrasound modalities designated as "core emergency ultrasound applications" in the 2008 American College of Emergency Physicians Ultrasound Guidelines. Literature search identified 307 studies; of these, 45 met inclusion criteria for review.
resultsThe median STARD score was 15 (interquartile range [IQR] 12-17), representing 60% of the 25 total STARD criteria. The median STARD score among articles that reported diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than those that did not report accuracy (17 [IQR 15-19] vs. 11 [IQR 9-13], respectively; p < 0.0001). Seventy-one percent of articles met ≥50% of the STARD criteria (56-84%) and 4% met >80% of the STARD criteria.
conclusionsSignificant opportunities exist to improve methodological reporting of EUS research. Increased adherence to the STARD criteria among diagnostic EUS studies will improve reporting and improve our ability to compare outcomes.
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.