Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

First authorCountryYearJournalResearch fieldNumber of articles includedTimeframeNumber of STARD items evaluatedMean STARD score (% items evaluated)Authors’ conclusions on quality of reporting
Areia16Portugal2010EndoscopyEndoscopy1101998–20082512.9 (52)‘Recent publications in diagnostic endoscopy achieve only medium quality’
Coppus17The Netherlands2006Fertility and SterilityReproductive medicine511999 vs 20042512.3 (49)‘The quality of reporting in articles on test accuracy in reproductive medicine is poor to mediocre’
Fontela18Canada2009PlosONECommercial tests for tuberculosis, HIV, malaria902004–20062513.6 (54)‘Diagnostic studies on tuberculosis, malaria and HIV commercial tests [...] were often poorly reported’
Freeman19UK2009European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive BiologyNon-invase prenatal diagnostic tests for Rhesus D genotyping271996–2006259.1 (36)‘Articles have consistent weaknesses in their reporting’
Gómez Sáez20Spain2009Medicina ClinicaAny research field, 4 Spanish journals582004–20072512.0 (48)‘Despite efforts by different groups of research to achieve higher methodological quality in the diagnostics field, on average, they follow less than half of the items proposed by STARD’
Johnson21UK2007OphthalmologyOptical coherence tomography (OCT) in glaucoma.302001–200625*13.2 (53)‘Quality of reporting of the diagnostic accuracy of OCT in glaucoma is suboptimal.’
Lumbreras22Spain2006Gaseta SanitàriaGenetic-molecular research.442002–2005249.8 (41)‘The articles on genetic-molecular diagnostic tests (...) fail to satisfy most of the quality requirements assembled in the STARD proposal’
Paranjothy23UK2007Journal of GlaucomaScanning laser polarimetry (SLP) for diagnosing glaucoma.201997–2000 vs 2004–200525*13.5 (54)‘The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests for glaucoma with SLP is suboptimal’
Rama24UK2006Clinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchOrthopedics.372002–20042514.2 (57)‘Current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in orthopaedic journals are suboptimal.’
Selman15UK2011BMC Women's HealthObstetrics and gynaecology.3001977–20072512.5 (50)‘The reporting of included studies in this review overall was poor.’
Shunmugam25UK2006Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual ScienceHeidelberg retina tomography (HRT) for glaucoma detection.291995–200425*14.3 (57)‘The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests for glaucoma with HRT is suboptimal.’
Siddiqui26UK2005British Journal of OphthalmologyOphthalmology.1620022511.6 (47)‘The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable.’
2006NeurologySix general and six disease/discipline-specific journals.2652000 vs 20042512.8 (51)‘After publication of STARD, the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies has slightly improved. There is still room for improvement.’
Wilczynski10Canada2008RadiologyTwelve journals on radiology, internal medicine or general medicine.2402001–2002 vs 2004–2005138.2 (63)‘We found low rates of adherence to the STARD checklist items.’
Zafar27UK2008Clinical and Experimental OphthalmologyDiabetic retinopathy (DR) screening.761995–2006259.9 (40)‘The quality of diagnostic accuracy reports in DR screening is suboptimal.’
Zintzaras28Greece2012BMC Musculoskeletal DisordersAnti-CCP2 for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.1032003–20102214.0 (64)‘The overall reporting quality was relatively good but needs further improvement.’
  • *One of the 25 evaluated STARD-items was not applicable to all the articles included in this study.

  • BMC, British Medical Council; DR, diabetic retinopathy; STARD, Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.