Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies before and after the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement publication and to determine whether there is a difference in the quality of reporting by comparing STARD (endorsing) and non-STARD (nonendorsing) journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy studies were identified by hand searching six STARD and six non-STARD journals for 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005. Diagnostic accuracy studies (n = 240) were assessed by using a checklist of 13 of 25 STARD items. The change in the mean total score on the modified STARD checklist was evaluated with analysis of covariance. The change in proportion of times that each individual STARD item was reported before and after STARD statement publication was evaluated (chi(2) tests for linear trend). RESULTS: With mean total score as dependent factor, analysis of covariance showed that the interaction between the two independent factors (STARD or non-STARD journal and year of publication) was not significant (F = 0.664, df = 3, partial eta(2) = 0.009, P = .58). Additionally, the frequency with which individual items on the STARD checklist were reported before and after STARD statement publication has remained relatively constant, with little difference between STARD and non-STARD journals. CONCLUSION: After publication of the STARD statement in 2003, the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies remained similar to pre-STARD statement publication levels, and there was no meaningful difference (ie, one additional item on the checklist of 13 of 25 STARD items being reported) in the quality of reporting between those journals that published the STARD statement and those that did not.