检查表
诊断准确性
医学
医学物理学
梅德林
可信赖性
计算机科学
心理学
放射科
政治学
计算机安全
认知心理学
法学
作者
Jérémie F. Cohen,Daniël A. Korevaar,Douglas G. Altman,David E. Bruns,Constantine Gatsonis,Lotty Hooft,Les Irwig,Deborah Levine,Johannes B. Reitsma,Henrica C.W. de Vet,Patrick M. Bossuyt
出处
期刊:BMJ Open
[BMJ]
日期:2016-11-01
卷期号:6 (11): e012799-e012799
被引量:1164
标识
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799
摘要
Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard. Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI