» Articles » PMID: 28137831

STARD 2015 Guidelines for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Explanation and Elaboration

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2017 Feb 1
PMID 28137831
Citations 800
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Validation of the capnodynamic method to calculate mixed venous oxygen saturation in postoperative cardiac patients.

Wallin M, Hallback M, Iftikhar H, Keleher E, Aneman A Intensive Care Med Exp. 2025; 13(1):32.

PMID: 40053202 PMC: 11889286. DOI: 10.1186/s40635-025-00741-z.


Can we trust published evidence on point-of-care tests for cholesterol? A rapid review.

Mutepfa C, Hicks T, Winter A, Dickinson R, Williams C, Harrison N BMJ Open. 2025; 15(3):e080726.

PMID: 40044199 PMC: 11883607. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080726.


Multicentre prospective study on the diagnostic and prognostic validity of malnutrition assessment tools in surgery.

Petra G, Kritsotakis E, Gouvas N, Schizas D, Toutouzas K, Karanikas M Br J Surg. 2025; 112(2).

PMID: 40037524 PMC: 11879291. DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znaf013.


Development of a diagnostic checklist to identify functional cognitive disorder versus other neurocognitive disorders.

Cabreira V, Alty J, Antic S, Araujo R, Aybek S, Ball H BMJ Neurol Open. 2025; 7(1):e000918.

PMID: 40034653 PMC: 11873336. DOI: 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000918.


A new rapid lipoarabinomannan urine assay for tuberculosis: a two-centre diagnostic accuracy evaluation in outpatients with and without HIV.

Hamasur B, Okunola A, Sserubiri J, Dube-Nwamba W, Nwamba W, Abdulgader S Res Sq. 2025; .

PMID: 40034451 PMC: 11875286. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5386988/v2.


References
1.
Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, Mallett S, Deeks J, Reitsma J . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(8):529-36. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. View

2.
Korevaar D, Cohen J, de Ronde M, Virgili G, Dickersin K, Bossuyt P . Reporting Weaknesses in Conference Abstracts of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Ophthalmology. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015; 133(12):1464-7. PMC: 5031079. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.3577. View

3.
Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, Mallett S . A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(10):1093-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014. View

4.
Rajaram S, Swift A, Capener D, Telfer A, Davies C, Hill C . Lung morphology assessment with balanced steady-state free precession MR imaging compared with CT. Radiology. 2012; 263(2):569-77. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12110990. View

5.
Horvath A, Lord S, StJohn A, Sandberg S, Cobbaert C, Lorenz S . From biomarkers to medical tests: the changing landscape of test evaluation. Clin Chim Acta. 2013; 427:49-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.09.018. View