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
Review
. 2023 Mar;32(1):e1939.
doi: 10.1002/mpr.1939. Epub 2022 Sep 1.

Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta-research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement

Elsa-Lynn Nassar  1   2 , Brooke Levis  1   3 , Marieke A Neyer  1 , Danielle B Rice  1   4 , Linda Booij  2   5   6 , Andrea Benedetti  7   8   9 , Brett D Thombs  1   2   4   7   8   10   11
Affiliations
Review

Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta-research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement

Elsa-Lynn Nassar et al. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2023 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements.

Methods: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies.

Results: 106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub-items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1, SD = 2.5; median = 10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut-offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol.

Conclusion: Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence.

Keywords: STARD; depression; diagnostic test accuracy; reporting guidelines; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors completed the ICJME uniform disclosure form and declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years. All authors declare no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flow diagram of selection of primary studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bastos, M. L. , Tavaziva, G. , Abidi, S. K. , Campbell, J. R. , Haraoui, L. P. , Johnston, J. C. , Lan, Z. , Law, S. , MacLean, E. , Trajman, A. , Menzies, D. , Benedetti, A. , Ahmad Khan, F. , & Khan, F. A. (2020). Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid‐19: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ, 370, m2516. 10.1136/bmj.m2516 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bhandari, P. M. , Levis, B. , Neupane, D. , Patten, S. B. , Shrier, I. , Thombs, B. D. , Benedetti, A. , & Depression Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group . (2021). Data‐driven methods distort optimal cutoffs and accuracy estimates of depression screening tools: A simulation study using individual participant data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 137, 137–147. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.031 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bossuyt, P. M. , Reitsma, J. B. , Bruns, D. E. , Gatsonis, C. A. , Glasziou, P. P. , Irwig, L. M. , Lijmer, J. G. , Moher, D. , Rennie, D. , & de Vet, H. C. , & Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy . (2003). Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clinical Chemistry, 49(1), 1–6. 10.1373/49.1.1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carpenter, C. R. , Banerjee, J. , Keyes, D. , Eagles, D. , Schnitker, L. , Barbic, D. , Fowler, S. , & LaMantia, M. A. (2019). Accuracy of Dementia screening instruments in emergency medicine: A diagnostic meta‐analysis. Academic Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 26(2), 226–245. 10.1111/acem.13573 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cobo, E. , Cortés, J. , Ribera, J. M. , Cardellach, F. , Selva‐O'Callaghan, A. , Kostov, B. , García, L. , Cirugeda, L. , Altman, D. G. , González, J. A. , Sànchez, J. A. , Miras, F. , Urrutia, A. , Fonollosa, V. , Rey‐Joly, C. , & Vilardell, M. (2011). Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: Masked randomised trial. BMJ, 343, d6783. 10.1136/bmj.d6783 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources