Diagnostic accuracy research in glaucoma is still incompletely reported: An application of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015

Manuele Michelessi; Ersilia Lucenteforte; Alba Miele; Francesco Oddone; Giada Crescioli; Valeria Fameli; Daniël A Korevaar; Gianni Virgili

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189716

Diagnostic accuracy research in glaucoma is still incompletely reported: An application of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015

PLoS One. 2017 Dec 14;12(12):e0189716. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189716. eCollection 2017.

Authors

Manuele Michelessi¹, Ersilia Lucenteforte², Alba Miele³, Francesco Oddone¹, Giada Crescioli², Valeria Fameli⁴, Daniël A Korevaar⁵, Gianni Virgili³

Affiliations

¹ IRCSS-Fondazione G.B. Bietti, Rome, Italy.
² Department of Translational Surgery and Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
³ Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
⁴ Ophthalmology unit, Department of Sens, Organs, University of Rome "Sapienza", Rome, Italy.
⁵ Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (KEBB), Academic Medical Centre (AMC), University of Amsterdam (UvA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Background: Research has shown a modest adherence of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in glaucoma to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD). We have applied the updated 30-item STARD 2015 checklist to a set of studies included in a Cochrane DTA systematic review of imaging tools for diagnosing manifest glaucoma.

Methods: Three pairs of reviewers, including one senior reviewer who assessed all studies, independently checked the adherence of each study to STARD 2015. Adherence was analyzed on an individual-item basis. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of publication year and impact factor on adherence.

Results: We included 106 DTA studies, published between 2003-2014 in journals with a median impact factor of 2.6. Overall adherence was 54.1% for 3,286 individual rating across 31 items, with a mean of 16.8 (SD: 3.1; range 8-23) items per study. Large variability in adherence to reporting standards was detected across individual STARD 2015 items, ranging from 0 to 100%. Nine items (1: identification as diagnostic accuracy study in title/abstract; 6: eligibility criteria; 10: index test (a) and reference standard (b) definition; 12: cut-off definitions for index test (a) and reference standard (b); 14: estimation of diagnostic accuracy measures; 21a: severity spectrum of diseased; 23: cross-tabulation of the index and reference standard results) were adequately reported in more than 90% of the studies. Conversely, 10 items (3: scientific and clinical background of the index test; 11: rationale for the reference standard; 13b: blinding of index test results; 17: analyses of variability; 18; sample size calculation; 19: study flow diagram; 20: baseline characteristics of participants; 28: registration number and registry; 29: availability of study protocol; 30: sources of funding) were adequately reported in less than 30% of the studies. Only four items showed a statistically significant improvement over time: missing data (16), baseline characteristics of participants (20), estimates of diagnostic accuracy (24) and sources of funding (30).

Conclusions: Adherence to STARD 2015 among DTA studies in glaucoma research is incomplete, and only modestly increasing over time.

MeSH terms

Glaucoma / diagnosis*
Guideline Adherence*
Humans
Journal Impact Factor
Publishing*

Grants and funding

The contribution of the IRCCS Fondazione Bietti in this paper was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and by Fondazione Roma. The supporting organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.