The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using the Heidelberg retina tomograph

PURPOSE. Scanning laser tomography with the Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) has been proposed as a useful diagnostic test for glaucoma. This study was conducted to evaluate the quality of reporting of published studies using the HRT for diagnosing glaucoma. METHODS. A validated Medline and hand search of English-language articles reporting on measures of diagnostic accuracy of the HRT for glaucoma was performed. Two reviewers selected and appraised the papers independently. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of each publication. RESULTS. A total of 29 articles were included. Interobserver rating agreement was observed in 83% of items (? = 0.76). The number of STARD items properly reported ranged from 5 to 18. Less than a third of studies (7/29) explicitly reported more than half of the STARD items. Descriptions of key aspects of the methodology were frequently missing. For example, the design of the study (prospective or retrospective) was reported in 6 of 29 studies, and details of participant sampling (e.g., consecutive or random selection) were described in 5 of 29 publications. The commonest description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity (25/29) followed by area under the ROC curve (13/29), with 9 of 29 publications reporting both. CONCLUSIONS. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests for glaucoma with HRT is suboptimal. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Copyright © Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals

Aim: To evaluate the quality of reporting of all diagnostic studies published in five major ophthalmic journals in the year 2002 using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters. Methods: Manual searching was used to identify diagnostic studies published in 2002 in five leading ophthalmic journals, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), and Ophthalmology. The STARD checklist of 25 items and flow chart was used to evaluate the quality of each publication. Results: A total of 16 publications were included (AJO = 5, Archives = 1, BJO = 2, IOVS = 2, and Ophthalmology = 6). More than half of the studies (n = 9) were related to glaucoma diagnosis. Other specialties included retina (n = 4) cornea (n = 2), and neuro-ophthalmology (n = 1). The most common description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity values, published in 13 articles. The number of fully reported items in evaluated studies ranged from eight to 19. Seven studies reported more than 50% of the STARD items. Conclusions: The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.