Evaluation of Imaging Research Adherence to the STARD 2015 Reporting Guideline: Update 9 Years After Implementation and Baseline Assessment.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita, Haben Dawit, Sakib Kazi, Robert G Adamo, Nabil Islam, Sebastian Karpinski, Jean-Paul Salameh, Eric Lam, Hoda Osman, Danyaal Ansari, Daniël A Korevaar, Patrick M Bossuyt, Matthew D F McInnes
{"title":"Evaluation of Imaging Research Adherence to the STARD 2015 Reporting Guideline: Update 9 Years After Implementation and Baseline Assessment.","authors":"Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita, Haben Dawit, Sakib Kazi, Robert G Adamo, Nabil Islam, Sebastian Karpinski, Jean-Paul Salameh, Eric Lam, Hoda Osman, Danyaal Ansari, Daniël A Korevaar, Patrick M Bossuyt, Matthew D F McInnes","doi":"10.1177/08465371251324090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Adherence of diagnostic accuracy imaging research to the STARD 2015 reporting guideline was assessed at baseline in 2016; on average, only 55% of 30 items were reported. Several knowledge translation strategies have since been implemented by the STARD group. <b>Purpose:</b> The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies recently published in imaging journals to STARD 2015, to assess for changes in the level of adherence relative to the baseline study. <b>Methods:</b> We performed an electronic search on MEDLINE for diagnostic accuracy studies, published between May and June of 2024, from a select group of imaging journals. The timespan was modulated to achieve a sample size of 100 to 150 included studies. Overall and item-specific adherence to STARD 2015 was evaluated, in addition to associations with journal of publication, imaging modality, study design, country of corresponding author, imaging subspecialty area, journal impact factor, and journal STARD adoption. Statistical comparison to the baseline study from 2016 was also performed. Poisson Regression and two-tailed student's tests were used to compare STARD adherence relative to variables included in subgroup analysis. <b>Results:</b> In the 126 included studies, average adherence to STARD 2015 was 61% (18.3/30 items; SD = 3.1), improved compared to the baseline study (55%; 16.6/30 items; SD = 2.2; <i>P</i> < .0001). Studies published in higher impact factor journals reported more items than those in lower impact factor journals (20.6 vs 18.4 items, <i>P</i>-value <.0001). There was no significant association between reporting completeness and journal of publication (<i>P</i> = .7), imaging modality (<i>P</i> = .21), country of corresponding author (<i>P</i> = .46), imaging subspecialty (<i>P</i> = .31), and journal STARD adoption status (<i>P</i> = .55). <b>Conclusion:</b> Recently published diagnostic accuracy studies reported more STARD 2015 items than studies published in 2016, but completeness of reporting is still not optimal.</p>","PeriodicalId":55290,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes","volume":" ","pages":"8465371251324090"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371251324090","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Adherence of diagnostic accuracy imaging research to the STARD 2015 reporting guideline was assessed at baseline in 2016; on average, only 55% of 30 items were reported. Several knowledge translation strategies have since been implemented by the STARD group. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies recently published in imaging journals to STARD 2015, to assess for changes in the level of adherence relative to the baseline study. Methods: We performed an electronic search on MEDLINE for diagnostic accuracy studies, published between May and June of 2024, from a select group of imaging journals. The timespan was modulated to achieve a sample size of 100 to 150 included studies. Overall and item-specific adherence to STARD 2015 was evaluated, in addition to associations with journal of publication, imaging modality, study design, country of corresponding author, imaging subspecialty area, journal impact factor, and journal STARD adoption. Statistical comparison to the baseline study from 2016 was also performed. Poisson Regression and two-tailed student's tests were used to compare STARD adherence relative to variables included in subgroup analysis. Results: In the 126 included studies, average adherence to STARD 2015 was 61% (18.3/30 items; SD = 3.1), improved compared to the baseline study (55%; 16.6/30 items; SD = 2.2; P < .0001). Studies published in higher impact factor journals reported more items than those in lower impact factor journals (20.6 vs 18.4 items, P-value <.0001). There was no significant association between reporting completeness and journal of publication (P = .7), imaging modality (P = .21), country of corresponding author (P = .46), imaging subspecialty (P = .31), and journal STARD adoption status (P = .55). Conclusion: Recently published diagnostic accuracy studies reported more STARD 2015 items than studies published in 2016, but completeness of reporting is still not optimal.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.90%
发文量
98
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal is a peer-reviewed, Medline-indexed publication that presents a broad scientific review of radiology in Canada. The Journal covers such topics as abdominal imaging, cardiovascular radiology, computed tomography, continuing professional development, education and training, gastrointestinal radiology, health policy and practice, magnetic resonance imaging, musculoskeletal radiology, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, pediatric radiology, radiology history, radiology practice guidelines and advisories, thoracic and cardiac imaging, trauma and emergency room imaging, ultrasonography, and vascular and interventional radiology. Article types considered for publication include original research articles, critically appraised topics, review articles, guest editorials, pictorial essays, technical notes, and letter to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信