Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Practice Guideline
. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799.

STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

Affiliations
Practice Guideline

STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

Jérémie F Cohen et al. BMJ Open. .

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.

Keywords: Diagnostic accuracy; Medical publishing; Peer review; Reporting quality; Research waste; Sensitivity and specificity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of flow diagram from a study evaluating the accuracy of faecal immunochemical testing for diagnosis of advanced colorectal neoplasia (adapted from Collins et al, with permission).
Figure 2
Figure 2
STARD 2015 flow diagram.

References

    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al. . Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:189–202. - PubMed
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al. . A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:1093–104. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al. . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Korevaar DA, van Enst WA, Spijker R et al. . Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD. Evid Based Med 2014;19:47–54. 10.1136/eb-2013-101637 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Korevaar DA, Wang J, van Enst WA et al. . Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: some improvements after 10 years of STARD. Radiology 2015;274:781–9. 10.1148/radiol.14141160 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types