Dataset Information

The quality of reporting of primary test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology: application of the STARD criteria.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In obstetrics and gynaecology there has been a rapid growth in the development of new tests and primary studies of their accuracy. It is imperative that such studies are reported with transparency allowing the detection of any potential bias that may invalidate the results. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of reporting in diagnostic test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy--STARD checklist.

Methods

The included studies of ten systematic reviews were assessed for compliance with each of the reporting criteria. Using appropriate statistical tests we investigated whether there was an improvement in reporting quality since the introduction of the STARD checklist, whether a correlation existed between study sample size, country of origin of study and reporting quality.

Results

A total of 300 studies were included (195 for obstetrics, 105 for gynaecology). The overall reporting quality of included studies to the STARD criteria was poor. Obstetric studies reported adequately > 50% of the time for 62.1% (18/29) of the items while gynaecologic studies did the same 51.7% (15/29). There was a greater mean compliance with STARD criteria in the included obstetric studies than the gynaecological (p < 0.0001). There was a positive correlation, in both obstetrics (p < 0.0001) and gynaecology (p = 0.0123), between study sample size and reporting quality. No correlation between geographical area of publication and compliance with the reporting criteria could be demonstrated.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of papers in obstetrics and gynaecology is improving. This may be due to initiatives such as the STARD checklist as well as historical progress in awareness among authors of the need to accurately report studies. There is however considerable scope for further improvement.

SUBMITTER: Selman TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3072919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObstetrics and gynaecology have seen rapid growth in the development of new tests with research on these tests presented as diagnostic accuracy studies. To avoid errors in judgement it is important that the methodology of these studies is such that bias is minimised. Our objective was to determine the methodological quality of test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist and to assess sources of bias.MethodsA prospective protocol was developed to assess the impact of QUADAS on ten systematic reviews performed over the period 2004-2007.We investigated whether there was an improvement in study quality since the introduction of QUADAS, whether a correlation existed between study sample size, country of origin of study and its quality. We also investigated whether there was a correlation between reporting and methodological quality and by the use of meta-regression analyses explored for items of quality that were associated with bias.ResultsA total of 300 studies were included. The overall quality of included studies was poor (> 50% compliance with 57.1% of quality items). However, the mean compliance with QUADAS showed an improvement post-publication of QUADAS (54.9% versus 61.4% p = 0.002). There was no correlation with study sample size. Gynaecology studies published from the United States of America showed higher quality (USA versus Western Europe p = 0.002; USA versus Asia p = 0.004). Meta-regression analysis showed that no individual quality item had a significant impact on accuracy. There was an association between reporting and methodological quality (r = 0.51 p < 0.0001 for obstetrics and r = 0.56 p < 0.0001 for gynaecology).ConclusionsA combination of poor methodological quality and poor reporting affects the inferences that can be drawn from test accuracy studies. Further compliance with quality checklists is required to ensure that bias is minimised.

Project description:IntroductionStandards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Study (STARD) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reporting in studies investigating diagnostic test accuracy. However, its current form, STARD 2015 does not address the issues and challenges raised by artificial intelligence (AI)-centred interventions. As such, we propose an AI-specific version of the STARD checklist (STARD-AI), which focuses on the reporting of AI diagnostic test accuracy studies. This paper describes the methods that will be used to develop STARD-AI.Methods and analysisThe development of the STARD-AI checklist can be distilled into six stages. (1) A project organisation phase has been undertaken, during which a Project Team and a Steering Committee were established; (2) An item generation process has been completed following a literature review, a patient and public involvement and engagement exercise and an online scoping survey of international experts; (3) A three-round modified Delphi consensus methodology is underway, which will culminate in a teleconference consensus meeting of experts; (4) Thereafter, the Project Team will draft the initial STARD-AI checklist and the accompanying documents; (5) A piloting phase among expert users will be undertaken to identify items which are either unclear or missing. This process, consisting of surveys and semistructured interviews, will contribute towards the explanation and elaboration document and (6) On finalisation of the manuscripts, the group's efforts turn towards an organised dissemination and implementation strategy to maximise end-user adoption.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Joint Research Compliance Office at Imperial College London (reference number: 19IC5679). A dissemination strategy will be aimed towards five groups of stakeholders: (1) academia, (2) policy, (3) guidelines and regulation, (4) industry and (5) public and non-specific stakeholders. We anticipate that dissemination will take place in Q3 of 2021.

Project description:BackgroundIn January 2003, STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) were published in a number of journals, to improve the quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy studies. We designed a study to investigate the inter-assessment reproducibility, and intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the items in the STARD statement.MethodsThirty-two diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2000 in medical journals with an impact factor of at least 4 were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of reporting of these studies using the 25 items of the STARD statement. A consensus evaluation was obtained by discussing and resolving disagreements between reviewers. Almost two years later, the same studies were evaluated by the same reviewers. For each item, percentages agreement and Cohen's kappa between first and second consensus assessments (inter-assessment) were calculated. Intraclass Correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to evaluate its reliability.ResultsThe overall inter-assessment agreement for all items of the STARD statement was 85% (Cohen's kappa 0.70) and varied from 63% to 100% for individual items. The largest differences between the two assessments were found for the reporting of the rationale of the reference standard (kappa 0.37), number of included participants that underwent tests (kappa 0.28), distribution of the severity of the disease (kappa 0.23), a cross tabulation of the results of the index test by the results of the reference standard (kappa 0.33) and how indeterminate results, missing data and outliers were handled (kappa 0.25). Within and between reviewers, also large differences were observed for these items. The inter-assessment reliability of the STARD checklist was satisfactory (ICC = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.62 to 0.89]).ConclusionAlthough the overall reproducibility of the quality of reporting on diagnostic accuracy studies using the STARD statement was found to be good, substantial disagreements were found for specific items. These disagreements were not so much caused by differences in interpretation of the items by the reviewers but rather by difficulties in assessing the reporting of these items due to lack of clarity within the articles. Including a flow diagram in all reports on diagnostic accuracy studies would be very helpful in reducing confusion between readers and among reviewers.

Project description:Research has shown a modest adherence of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in glaucoma to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD). We have applied the updated 30-item STARD 2015 checklist to a set of studies included in a Cochrane DTA systematic review of imaging tools for diagnosing manifest glaucoma.Three pairs of reviewers, including one senior reviewer who assessed all studies, independently checked the adherence of each study to STARD 2015. Adherence was analyzed on an individual-item basis. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of publication year and impact factor on adherence.We included 106 DTA studies, published between 2003-2014 in journals with a median impact factor of 2.6. Overall adherence was 54.1% for 3,286 individual rating across 31 items, with a mean of 16.8 (SD: 3.1; range 8-23) items per study. Large variability in adherence to reporting standards was detected across individual STARD 2015 items, ranging from 0 to 100%. Nine items (1: identification as diagnostic accuracy study in title/abstract; 6: eligibility criteria; 10: index test (a) and reference standard (b) definition; 12: cut-off definitions for index test (a) and reference standard (b); 14: estimation of diagnostic accuracy measures; 21a: severity spectrum of diseased; 23: cross-tabulation of the index and reference standard results) were adequately reported in more than 90% of the studies. Conversely, 10 items (3: scientific and clinical background of the index test; 11: rationale for the reference standard; 13b: blinding of index test results; 17: analyses of variability; 18; sample size calculation; 19: study flow diagram; 20: baseline characteristics of participants; 28: registration number and registry; 29: availability of study protocol; 30: sources of funding) were adequately reported in less than 30% of the studies. Only four items showed a statistically significant improvement over time: missing data (16), baseline characteristics of participants (20), estimates of diagnostic accuracy (24) and sources of funding (30).Adherence to STARD 2015 among DTA studies in glaucoma research is incomplete, and only modestly increasing over time.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe aim was to systematically review whether the reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology comply with guidelines and recommendations, and whether this has improved over time.Data sources and selection criteriaA literature search was performed in MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database to identify trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology published between January 1, 2000 and May 16, 2017. Studies performed in middle- and low-income countries and studies related to prevention, midwifery, and reproduction were excluded.Data collection and analysisReporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement (a modified version with 21 items, as we focused on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations) and the statistical quality was assessed using a literature-based list of criteria (8 items). Exploratory regression analyses were performed to assess the association between reporting and statistical quality scores and publication year.ResultsThe electronic search resulted in 5482 potentially eligible studies. Forty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 22 in obstetrics and 23 in gynaecology. Twenty-seven (60%) studies did not adhere to 50% (n = 10) or more of the reporting quality items and 32 studies (71%) did not meet 50% (n = 4) or more of the statistical quality items. As for the statistical quality, no study used the appropriate method to assess cost differences, no advanced methods were used to deal with missing data, and clustering of data was ignored in all studies. No significant improvements over time were found in reporting or statistical quality in gynaecology, whereas in obstetrics a significant improvement in reporting and statistical quality was found over time.LimitationsThe focus of this review was on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology, so further research is needed to explore whether results from this review are generalizable to other medical disciplines.Conclusions and implications of key findingsThe reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in gynaecology and obstetrics is generally poor. Since this can result in biased results, incorrect conclusions, and inappropriate healthcare decisions, there is an urgent need for improvement in the methods of cost-effectiveness evaluations in this field.