Recommended reporting standards for test accuracy studies of infectious diseases of finfish, amphibians, molluscs and crustaceans: the STRADAS-aquatic checklist

Complete and transparent reporting of key elements of diagnostic accuracy studies for infectious diseases in cultured and wild aquatic animals benefits end-users of these tests, enabling the rational design of surveillance programs, the assessment of test results from clinical cases and comparisons of diagnostic test performance. Based on deficiencies in the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines identified in a prior finfish study (Gardner et al. 2014), we adapted the Standards for Reporting of Animal Diagnostic Accuracy Studies—paratuberculosis (STRADAS-paraTB) checklist of 25 reporting items to increase their relevance to finfish, amphibians, molluscs, and crustaceans and provided examples and explanations for each item. The checklist, known as STRADAS-aquatic, was developed and refined by an expert group of 14 transdisciplinary scientists with experience in test evaluation studies using field and experimental samples, in operation of reference laboratories for aquatic animal pathogens, and in development of international aquatic animal health policy. The main changes to the STRADAS-paraTB checklist were to nomenclature related to the species, the addition of guidelines for experimental challenge studies, and the designation of some items as relevant only to experimental studies and ante-mortem tests. We believe that adoption of these guidelines will improve reporting of primary studies of test accuracy for aquatic animal diseases and facilitate assessment of their fitness-for-purpose. Given the importance of diagnostic tests to underpin the Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement of the World Trade Organization, the principles outlined in this paper should be applied to other World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)-relevant species.

Beyond Blame: cultural barriers to medical reporting

The paper explores the attitudes of medical physicians towards adverse incident reporting in health care, with particular focus on the inhibiting factors or barriers to participation. It is recognised that there are major barriers to medical reporting, such as the ‘culture of blame’. There are, however, few detailed qualitative accounts of medical culture as it relates to incident reporting. Drawing on a 2-year qualitative case study in the UK, this paper presents data gathered from 28 semi-structured interviews with specialist physicians. The findings suggest that blame certainly inhibits medical reporting, but other cultural issues were also significant. It was commonly accepted by doctors that errors are an ‘inevitable’ and potentially unmanageable feature of medical work and incident reporting was therefore ‘pointless’. It was also found that reporting was discouraged by an anti-bureaucratic sentiment and rejection of excessive administrative duties. Doctors were also apprehensive about the increased potential for managers and non-physicians to engage in the regulation of medical quality through the use of incident data. The paper argues that the promotion of incident reporting must engage with more than the ubiquitous ‘culture of blame’ and instead address the ‘culture of medicine’, especially as it relates to the collegial and professional control of quality.

Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting

Background: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty in the late 1970s, is one of the methods for multi-criteria decision making. The AHP disaggregates a complex decision problem into different hierarchical levels. The weight for each criterion and alternative are judged in pairwise comparisons and priorities are calculated by the Eigenvector method. The slowly increasing application of the AHP was the motivation for this study to explore the current state of its methodology in the healthcare context. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted by searching the Pubmed and Web of Science databases for articles with the following keywords in their titles or abstracts: "Analytic Hierarchy Process," "Analytical Hierarchy Process," "multi-criteria decision analysis," "multiple criteria decision," "stated preference," and "pairwise comparison." In addition, we developed reporting criteria to indicate whether the authors reported important aspects and evaluated the resulting studies' reporting. Results: The systematic review resulted in 121 articles. The number of studies applying AHP has increased since 2005. Most studies were from Asia (almost 30 %), followed by the US (25.6 %). On average, the studies used 19.64 criteria throughout their hierarchical levels. Furthermore, we restricted a detailed analysis to those articles published within the last 5 years (n = 69). The mean of participants in these studies were 109, whereas we identified major differences in how the surveys were conducted. The evaluation of reporting showed that the mean of reported elements was about 6.75 out of 10. Thus, 12 out of 69 studies reported less than half of the criteria. Conclusion: The AHP has been applied inconsistently in healthcare research. A minority of studies described all the relevant aspects. Thus, the statements in this review may be biased, as they are restricted to the information available in the papers. Hence, further research is required to discover who should be interviewed and how, how inconsistent answers should be dealt with, and how the outcome and stability of the results should be presented. In addition, we need new insights to determine which target group can best handle the challenges of the AHP. © 2015 Schmidt et al.

An extension of STARD statements for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies on liver fibrosis tests: the Liver-FibroSTARD standards

International audience