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
. 2017 Oct 12;12(10):e0186209.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186209. eCollection 2017.

STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma

Gianni Virgili  1 , Manuele Michelessi  2 , Alba Miele  1 , Francesco Oddone  2 , Giada Crescioli  3 , Valeria Fameli  4 , Ersilia Lucenteforte  3
Affiliations

STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma

Gianni Virgili et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the reproducibility of the updated Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (STARD 2015) in a set of 106 studies included in a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review of imaging tests for diagnosing manifest glaucoma.

Methods: One senior rater with DTA methodological and clinical expertise used STARD 2015 on all studies, and each of three raters with different training profiles assessed about a third of the studies.

Results: Raw agreement was very good or almost perfect between the senior rater and an ophthalmology resident with DTA methods training, acceptable with a clinical rater with little DTA methods training, and only moderate with a pharmacology researcher with general, but not DTA, systematic review training and no clinical expertise. The relationship between adherence with STARD 2015 and methodological quality with QUADAS 2 was only partial and difficult to investigate, suggesting that raters used substantial context knowledge in risk of bias assessment.

Conclusions: STARD 2015 proved to be reproducible in this specific research field, provided that both clinical and DTA methodological expertise are achieved through training of its users.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, Moher D, Schulz K (2008) EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet 371: 1149–1150. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60505-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Simera I (2016) A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med 109: 67–77. doi: 10.1177/0141076815625599 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. (2003) The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 138: W1–12. - PubMed
    1. Ochodo EA, Bossuyt PM (2013) Reporting the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the STARD initiative 10 years on. Clin Chem 59: 917–919. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.206516 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Korevaar DA, van Enst WA, Spijker R, Bossuyt PM, Hooft L (2014) Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD. Evid Based Med 19: 47–54. doi: 10.1136/eb-2013-101637 - DOI - PubMed