ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2020
Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Laboratory Medicine: Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of stroke blood biomarker data highlights need for more translational research methods.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- Adherence to STARD guidelines in miRNA diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Complete Blood Cell Count-Derived Biomarkers and Clinical Studies: Is It Time for New Reporting Criteria? Comment on Anand et al. Utility of Red Cell Distribution Width (RDW) as a Noninvasive Biomarker for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 5222 Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Knowledge, practice and psychological symptoms among medical laboratory staff during COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal: An online based survey.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoor reporting quality in diagnostic accuracy studies hampers an adequate judgment of the validity of the study. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was published to improve the reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies published in Annals of Laboratory Medicine (ALM) to STARD 2015 and to identify directions for improvement in the reporting quality of these studies.
methodsTwo independent authors assessed articles published in ALM between 2012-2018 for compliance with 30 STARD 2015 checklist items to identify all eligible diagnostic accuracy studies published during this period. We included 66 diagnostic accuracy studies. A total of the fulfilled STARD items were calculated, and adherence was analyzed on an individual-item basis.
resultsThe overall mean±SD number of STARD items reported for the included studies was 11.2±2.7. Only five (7.6%) studies adhered to more than 50% of the 30 items. No study satisfied more than 80% of the items. Large variability in adherence to reporting standards was detected across items, ranging from 0% to 100%.
conclusionsAdherence to STARD 2015 is suboptimal among diagnostic accuracy studies published in ALM. Our study emphasizes the necessity of adherence to STARD to improve the reporting quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies to be published in ALM.
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.