Les Irwig

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.

Meta-analyses are subject to bias for many of reasons, including publication bias. Asymmetry in a funnel plot of study size against treatment effect is often used to identify such bias. We compare the performance of three simple methods of testing for bias: the rank correlation method; a simple linear regression of the standardized estimate of treatment effect on the precision of the estimate; and a regression of the treatment effect on sample size. The tests are applied to simulated meta-analyses in the presence and absence of publication bias. Both one-sided and two-sided censoring of studies based on statistical significance was used. The results indicate that none of the tests performs consistently well. Test performance varied with the magnitude of the true treatment effect, distribution of study size and whether a one- or two-tailed significance test was employed. Overall, the power of the tests was low when the number of studies per meta-analysis was close to that often observed in practice. Tests that showed the highest power also had type I error rates higher than the nominal level. Based on the empirical type I error rates, a regression of treatment effect on sample size, weighted by the inverse of the variance of the logit of the pooled proportion (using the marginal total) is the preferred method.

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.