Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

Abstract

Objective: To determine the rate with which diagnostic test accuracy studies that are published in a general radiology journal adhere to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015, and to explore the relationship between adherence rate and citation rate while avoiding confounding by journal factors.

Materials and methods: All eligible diagnostic test accuracy studies that were published in the Korean Journal of Radiology in 2011-2015 were identified. Five reviewers assessed each article for yes/no compliance with 27 of the 30 STARD 2015 checklist items (items 28, 29, and 30 were excluded). The total STARD score (number of fulfilled STARD items) was calculated. The score of the 15 STARD items that related directly to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was also calculated. The number of times each article was cited (as indicated by the Web of Science) after publication until March 2016 and the article exposure time (time in months between publication and March 2016) were extracted.

Results: Sixty-three articles were analyzed. The mean (range) total and QUADAS-2-related STARD scores were 20.0 (14.5-25) and 11.4 (7-15), respectively. The mean citation number was 4 (0-21). Citation number did not associate significantly with either STARD score after accounting for exposure time (total score: correlation coefficient = 0.154, p = 0.232; QUADAS-2-related score: correlation coefficient = 0.143, p = 0.266).

Conclusion: The degree of adherence to STARD 2015 was moderate for this journal, indicating that there is room for improvement. When adjusted for exposure time, the degree of adherence did not affect the citation rate.

Keywords: Accuracy; Adherence; Citation; Impact; Impact factor; Reporting quality; STARD; STARD 2015.