Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

Objective To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study, and to evaluate a study's generalisability. Methods The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two day consensus meeting, with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. Results The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25 item checklist, by using evidence, whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and the reference standard, or both. Conclusions Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the STARD checklist and flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Assessing facial approximation accuracy: How do resemblance ratings of disparate faces compare to recognition tests?

In the past, the accuracy of facial approximations has been assessed by resemblance ratings (i.e., the comparison of a facial approximation directly to a target individual) and recognition tests (e.g., the comparison of a facial approximation to a photo array of faces including foils and a target individual). Recently, several research studies have indicated that recognition tests hold major strengths in contrast to resemblance ratings. However, resemblance ratings remain popularly employed and/or are given weighting when judging facial approximations, thus indicating that no consensus has been reached. This study aims to further investigate the matter by comparing the results of resemblance ratings and recognition tests for two facial approximations which clearly differed in their morphological appearance. One facial approximation was constructed by an experienced practitioner privy to the appearance of the target individual (practitioner had direct access to an antemortem frontal photograph during face construction), while the other facial approximation was constructed by a novice under blind conditions. Both facial approximations, whilst clearly morphologically different, were given similar resemblance scores even though recognition test results produced vastly different results. One facial approximation was correctly recognized almost without exception while the other was not correctly recognized above chance rates. These results suggest that resemblance ratings are insensitive measures of the accuracy of facial approximations and lend further weight to the use of recognition tests in facial approximation assessment. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.