Quality evaluation on diagnostic accuracy research in China from 2017 to 2022 based on STARD2015
10.3760/cma.j.cn114452-20231031-00247
- VernacularTitle:基于STARD2015对2017—2022年国内诊断准确性研究的质量评价
- Author:
Jing ZHANG
1
;
Wenxu YANG
;
Youmei LU
;
Xuyao JI
;
Yu LIU
Author Information
1. 哈尔滨医科大学附属第四医院检验科，哈尔滨 150001
- Keywords:
Documentation;
Susceptibility;
Specificity;
Diagnostic tests
- From:
Chinese Journal of Laboratory Medicine
2024;47(3):308-313
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:The quality of domestic diagnostic accuracy research was evaluated to explore the quality level of domestic diagnostic accuracy research based on Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy 2015 (STARD2015).Methods:The Chinese core journals of CNKI and Wanfang Database were searched, and research literature on diagnostic accuracy published from 2017 to 2022 were collected. The main search terms are diagnostic test, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, etc. The literature was selected according to the inclusion criteria, and the quality of the included literature was evaluated independently by two reviewers, and the conformity rate of the STARD2015 report and the STARD2015 article was calculated. The report quality of the literature was divided into three levels (low, medium and high) according to the conformity rate of the STARD2015 report. The proportion of literature at each level and the proportion of literature at medium and high level in each year were counted. According to quality analysis on the contents of the included articles, articles were divided into standardized reports and unstandardized reports. Intragroup correlation coefficient ( ICC) was used to analyze the consistency of two reviewers. The trend Chi-square test was used to analyze the trend of the proportion of medium and high level literature in each year. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the coincidence rates evaluated by STARD2015 for each year. Results:A total of 6 771 studies on diagnostic accuracy published from 2017 to 2022 were included. The compliance rate sccording to STARD2015 was 39.56%±4.90%, and the reported compliance rate ranged from 17.65% to 64.71% (the number of reported items ranged from 6 to 22), and 93.53% (6 333/6 771) literatures were in the middle level. Compliance rate of STARD2015 reports varied significantly among different years ( F=25.023, P<0.01), and the compliance rate of 2021 was significantly higher than that of other years ( P<0.01). The proportion of medium and high level literatures according to STARD2015 showed an increasing trend ( χ 2=14.099, P<0.01). The reporting situation of each item varied significantly, and the conformity rate of items raned from 0 to 100%. According to report item, non-standard report rate was 10.34% (569/5 503) for item 6, 4.15% (277/6 677) for item 8, 21.84% (1 447/6 626) for item 20, 66.67% (24/36) for item 22, and 26.03% (877/3 369) for item 26. Conclusions:The overall report quality of published domestic literature on diagnostic accuracy from 2017 to 2022 is at a medium level according to STARD2015, and the reports conformity rate of each item vary significantly, indicating significant knowledge gap on STARD2015 among domestic researchers. The promotion of STARD2015 needs to be strengthened.
