EvaluationofthereportingqualityofchineseimagingdiagnosticaccuracystudiesbySTARD2015
10.3969/j.issn.1002-1671.2019.05.032
- VernacularTitle:STARD2015对国内影像诊断准确性试验报告的评价
- Author:
Wangqing DUN
1
;
Gang CHE
;
Haosen WU
;
Yuan MA
;
Wanghuan DUN
Author Information
1. 西安交通大学第一附属医院康复医学科
- Keywords:
STARD 2015;
imagingdiagnosis;
diagnosticaccuracy test;
systematicreview
- From:
Journal of Practical Radiology
2019;35(5):815-818,845
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective ToevaluatethereportingqualityofChineseimagingdiagnosticaccuracystudiesbyStandardsforReporting DiagnosticAccuracyStudies (STARD)2015.Methods AticalspublishedinChina,whichoriginatedfrom ChinaBiology Medicine (CBM),ChinaNationalKnowledgeInfrastructure(CNKI)andWanfangDatabasefromJanuary12014toApril82016wereretrievedfor statisticalanalysis.Keywordswereasfollows:"Ultrasound","CT","MRI","X-ray"and"diagnosticstudy".Tworeviewersindependently screenedtheliteraturesandassessedtheincorporatedstudies.Excel2016wasusedtofigureouttheaccordancerateandSPSS (version 17.0)wasusedtoanalyzethedata.Results 152studieswerefinallyincluded.Thenumberandproportionofstudiesonimagingdiagnostic methodswere84 (55.26%)ultrasound,29 (19.08%)CT,16 (10.53%)MRI,and23 (15.13%)withthecombinationoftwoand moremethods.Thecoincidencerateandcorrespondingnumberofsingledocumentreportswereasfollows:0%－10%,1report;11%－20%,4reports;21%－30%,45reports;31%－40%,74reports;41%－50%,24reports;51%－60%,3reports;and61%－70%,1 report.Therewasnosignificantdifferenceofcoincidencerate (P＝0.09)betweendifferentimagingdiagnosticmethods.Also,there wasnosignificantdifferenceofcoincidenceratebetweentheoldentriesinSTARD2003andnewentriesinSTARD2015(P＝0.34). Conclusion ThisstudyprovidesareferencebaselinefortheresearchersandthecliniciansonthequalityofChinesetestreportson imagingdiagnosticaccuracy.Itisshowedthat,thereportsondiagnosticaccuracyofUltrasound,CT,MRIandX-raypublishedbetween January1,2014andApril8,2016aregenerally middleandlow level.
