The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals.

Muhammad Abdul Rehman Siddiqui, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, Jennifer Margaret Burr

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the quality of reporting of all diagnostic studies published in five major ophthalmic journals in the year 2002 using the Standards far Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters.

Methods: Manual searching was used to identify diagnostic studies published in 2002 in five leading ophthalmic journals, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), and Ophthalmology. The STARD checklist of 25 items and flow chart was used to evaluate the quality of each publication.

Results: A total of 16 publications were included (AJO=5, Archives= 1, BJO=2, IOVS=2, and Ophthalmology= 6). More than half of the studies (n = 9) were related to glaucoma diagnosis. Other specialties included retina (n=,4) cornea (n = 2), and neuro-ophthalmology (n = 1). The most common description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity values, published in 13 articles. The number of fully reported items in evaluated studies ranged from eight to 19. Seven studies reported more than 50% of the STARD items.

Conclusions: The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)261-265
Number of pages4
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume89
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Keywords

  • METHODOLOGICAL STANDARDS
  • TESTS
  • TRIALS
  • STATEMENT
  • HEALTH
  • BIAS

Cite this

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals. / Siddiqui, Muhammad Abdul Rehman; Azuara-Blanco, Augusto; Burr, Jennifer Margaret.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 89, No. 3, 2005, p. 261-265.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Siddiqui, Muhammad Abdul Rehman ; Azuara-Blanco, Augusto ; Burr, Jennifer Margaret. / The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals. In: British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2005 ; Vol. 89, No. 3. pp. 261-265.
@article{c9bd7108cb914cdca13ebac8b3b04b82,
title = "The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals.",
abstract = "Aim: To evaluate the quality of reporting of all diagnostic studies published in five major ophthalmic journals in the year 2002 using the Standards far Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters.Methods: Manual searching was used to identify diagnostic studies published in 2002 in five leading ophthalmic journals, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), and Ophthalmology. The STARD checklist of 25 items and flow chart was used to evaluate the quality of each publication.Results: A total of 16 publications were included (AJO=5, Archives= 1, BJO=2, IOVS=2, and Ophthalmology= 6). More than half of the studies (n = 9) were related to glaucoma diagnosis. Other specialties included retina (n=,4) cornea (n = 2), and neuro-ophthalmology (n = 1). The most common description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity values, published in 13 articles. The number of fully reported items in evaluated studies ranged from eight to 19. Seven studies reported more than 50{\%} of the STARD items.Conclusions: The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.",
keywords = "METHODOLOGICAL STANDARDS, TESTS, TRIALS, STATEMENT, HEALTH, BIAS",
author = "Siddiqui, {Muhammad Abdul Rehman} and Augusto Azuara-Blanco and Burr, {Jennifer Margaret}",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1136/bjo.2004.051862",
language = "English",
volume = "89",
pages = "261--265",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals.

AU - Siddiqui, Muhammad Abdul Rehman

AU - Azuara-Blanco, Augusto

AU - Burr, Jennifer Margaret

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Aim: To evaluate the quality of reporting of all diagnostic studies published in five major ophthalmic journals in the year 2002 using the Standards far Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters.Methods: Manual searching was used to identify diagnostic studies published in 2002 in five leading ophthalmic journals, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), and Ophthalmology. The STARD checklist of 25 items and flow chart was used to evaluate the quality of each publication.Results: A total of 16 publications were included (AJO=5, Archives= 1, BJO=2, IOVS=2, and Ophthalmology= 6). More than half of the studies (n = 9) were related to glaucoma diagnosis. Other specialties included retina (n=,4) cornea (n = 2), and neuro-ophthalmology (n = 1). The most common description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity values, published in 13 articles. The number of fully reported items in evaluated studies ranged from eight to 19. Seven studies reported more than 50% of the STARD items.Conclusions: The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.

AB - Aim: To evaluate the quality of reporting of all diagnostic studies published in five major ophthalmic journals in the year 2002 using the Standards far Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters.Methods: Manual searching was used to identify diagnostic studies published in 2002 in five leading ophthalmic journals, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), and Ophthalmology. The STARD checklist of 25 items and flow chart was used to evaluate the quality of each publication.Results: A total of 16 publications were included (AJO=5, Archives= 1, BJO=2, IOVS=2, and Ophthalmology= 6). More than half of the studies (n = 9) were related to glaucoma diagnosis. Other specialties included retina (n=,4) cornea (n = 2), and neuro-ophthalmology (n = 1). The most common description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity values, published in 13 articles. The number of fully reported items in evaluated studies ranged from eight to 19. Seven studies reported more than 50% of the STARD items.Conclusions: The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.

KW - METHODOLOGICAL STANDARDS

KW - TESTS

KW - TRIALS

KW - STATEMENT

KW - HEALTH

KW - BIAS

U2 - 10.1136/bjo.2004.051862

DO - 10.1136/bjo.2004.051862

M3 - Article

VL - 89

SP - 261

EP - 265

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

IS - 3

ER -