Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 27, 2026
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Multiple Sclerosis at 7.0 Tesla
Published on: February 19, 2021
Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: Adherence to STARD 2015
Patrick Jiho Hong1, Daniel A Korevaar2, Trevor A McGrath3
1Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Purpose:
To evaluate adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies in imaging journals to the STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015. The secondary objective was to identify differences in reporting for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies.
Materials And Methods:
MEDLINE was searched for diagnostic accuracy studies published in imaging journals in 2016. Studies were evaluated for adherence to STARD 2015 (30 items, including expanded imaging specific subitems). Evaluation for differences in STARD adherence based on modality, impact factor, journal STARD adoption, country, subspecialty area, study design, and journal was performed.
Results:
Adherence (n = 142 studies) was 55% (16.6/30 items, SD = 2.2). Index test description (including imaging-specific subitems) and interpretation were frequently reported (>66% of studies); no important differences in reporting of individual items were identified for studies on MRI. Infrequently reported items (<33% of studies) included some critical to generalizability (study setting and location) and assessment of bias (blinding of assessor of reference standard). New STARD 2015 items: sample size calculation, protocol reporting, and registration were infrequently reported. Higher impact factor (IF) journals reported more items than lower IF journals (17.2 vs. 16 items; P = 0.001). STARD adopter journals reported more items than nonadopters (17.5 vs. 16.4 items; P = 0.01). Adherence varied between journals (P = 0.003). No variability for study design (P = 0.32), subspecialty area (P = 0.75), country (P = 0.28), or imaging modality (P = 0.80) was identified.
Conclusion:
Imaging accuracy studies show moderate adherence to STARD 2015, with only minor differences for studies evaluating MRI. This baseline evaluation will guide targeted interventions towards identified deficiencies and help track progress in reporting.
Level Of Evidence:
1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:523-544.
Insights
Diagnostic accuracy studies in imaging journals show moderate adherence to STARD 2015 reporting guidelines. Key areas for improvement include study setting, bias assessment, and new STARD items for better generalizability and transparency.
Area of Science:
- Radiology and Medical Imaging
- Health Research Methodology
Background:
- Accurate reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies is crucial for clinical decision-making.
- The STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines aim to improve the quality of such reports.
- Adherence to reporting standards can vary significantly across different journals and study types.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies published in imaging journals to the STARD 2015 guidelines.
- To identify specific reporting deficiencies within these studies.
- To explore differences in reporting adherence for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies compared to other imaging modalities.
Main Methods:
- A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted for diagnostic accuracy studies in imaging journals published in 2016.
- Studies were assessed for adherence to the 30 items of the STARD 2015 checklist, including imaging-specific subitems.
- Statistical analyses were performed to identify variations in adherence based on journal impact factor, STARD adoption, country, subspecialty, study design, and imaging modality.
Main Results:
- Overall adherence to STARD 2015 was moderate at 55% (16.6 out of 30 items).
- Reporting of index test descriptions and interpretation was frequent (>66%), but critical items like study setting, location, and blinding of the reference standard assessor were infrequently reported (<33%).
- Higher impact factor journals and STARD adopter journals demonstrated better adherence. No significant differences in reporting were found for MRI studies compared to other modalities.
Conclusions:
- Diagnostic accuracy studies in imaging journals exhibit moderate adherence to STARD 2015, with specific areas needing improvement.
- Identified deficiencies, particularly in reporting generalizability and bias assessment, require targeted interventions.
- This baseline evaluation provides a foundation for future efforts to enhance reporting quality and track progress in the field.
Related Concept Videos
01:14Imaging Studies I: CT and MRI
Description of the Procedures
Computed Tomography (CT) scan:
Computed Tomography (CT) scans use X-ray technology to generate detailed images of bones, organs, and tissues. During the scan, the patient lies on a moving table...
01:21Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI
01:24Magnetic Resonance Imaging
01:27Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
01:30Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ventilation Perfusion Scans are two radiological investigations that offer detailed diagnostic images of the body, particularly lung structures.
MRI
MRI uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency signals to distinguish between normal and abnormal tissues. This technology provides a more detailed diagnostic image than CT scans, enabling it to characterize pulmonary nodules, stage bronchogenic carcinoma, and evaluate inflammatory activity in...
01:27Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography