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.

Association of public support for survival of wildlife species with their likeability

We surveyed 204 individuals from the general public in Brisbane, Australia, to ascertain the extent to which they liked or disliked 24 species of wildlife (belonging to three classes: mammals, birds and reptiles) present in tropical Australia. We calculated likeability indices for each species. We also asked respondents if they favored the survival of each of these species, and were able to calculate the percentage of respondents favoring survival of each. Using linear regression analysis, we could relate the percentage of respondents favoring survival of each of the species to their indices of likeability. In addition, we compared the mean likeability of species in the three classes (mammals, birds and reptiles) with the respondents' allocation of funds (hypothetical 1,000 Australian dollars) between conservation of species and a human charity. From this, we were able to assess how important stated likeability is for preferences to conserve species by animal class, and reconsidered the hypothesis in the literature that there is likely to be more public support for the survival of mammals than for birds, and more support for the survival of birds than for reptiles.