Standards For Reporting Of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Research Articles

PRIDASE 2024 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration

AbstractThe Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines are based on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, with the addition of items specifically related to endodontics. The use of the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines by authors and their application by journals during the peer review process will reduce the possibility of bias and enhance the quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies. The PRIDASE 2024 guidelines consist of a checklist containing 11 domains and 66 individual items. The purpose of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item on the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, along with examples from the literature to help readers understand their importance and offer advice to those developing manuscripts. A link to the PRIDASE 2024 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (https://pride‐endodonticguidelines.org/pridase/) and on the International Endodontic Journal website (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652591/homepage/pride‐guidelines.htm).

Comparative Evaluation of AI Models Such as ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Gemini in Neuroradiology Diagnostics.

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT (versions 3.5 and 4.0) and Google Gemini, are transforming healthcare. This study explores the performance of these AI models in solving diagnostic quizzes from "Neuroradiology: A Core Review" to evaluate their potential as diagnostic tools in radiology. We assessed the accuracy of ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Gemini using 262 multiple-choice questions covering brain, head and neck, spine, and non-interpretive skills. Each AI tool provided answers and explanations, which were compared to textbook answers. The analysis followed the STARD (Standardsfor Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines, and accuracy was calculated for each AI tool and subgroup. ChatGPT 4.0 achieved the highest overall accuracy at 64.89%, outperforming ChatGPT 3.5 (62.60%) and Google Gemini (55.73%). ChatGPT 4.0 excelled in brain, head, and neck diagnostics, while Google Gemini performed best in head and neck but lagged in other areas. ChatGPT 3.5 showed consistent performance across all subgroups. This study found that advanced AI models, including ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Gemini, vary in diagnostic accuracy, with ChatGPT 4.0 leading at 64.89% overall. While these tools are promising in improving diagnostics and medical education, their effectiveness varies by area, and Google Gemini performs unevenly across different categories. The study underscores the need for ongoing improvements and broader evaluation to address ethical concerns and optimize AI use in patient care.

Evaluation of adherence to STARD for abstracts in a diverse sample of diagnostic accuracy abstracts published in 2012 and 2019 reveals suboptimal reporting practices

ObjectivesTo evaluate the completeness of reporting in a sample of abstracts on diagnostic accuracy studies before and after the release of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) for abstracts in 2017. MethodsWe included 278 diagnostic accuracy abstracts published in 2012 (N = 138) and 2019 (N = 140) and indexed in EMBASE. We analyzed their adherence to 10 items of the 11-item STARD for abstracts checklist, and we explored variability in reporting across abstract characteristics using multivariable Poisson modeling. ResultsMost of the 278 abstracts (75%) were published in discipline-specific journals, with a median impact factor of 2.9 (IQR: 1.9–3.7). The majority (41%) of abstracts reported on imaging tests. Overall, a mean of 5.4/10 (SD: 1.4) STARD for abstracts items was reported (range: 1.2–9.7). Items reported in less than one-third of abstracts included ‘eligible patient demographics’ (24%), ‘setting of recruitment’ (30%), ‘method of enrollment’ (18%), ‘estimates of precision for accuracy measures’ (26%), and ‘protocol registration details’ (4%). We observed substantial variability in reporting across several abstract characteristics, with higher adherence associated with the use of a structured abstract, no journal limit for abstract word count, abstract word count above the median, one-gate enrollment design, and prospective data collection. There was no evidence of increase in the number of reported items between 2012 and 2019 (5.2 vs 5.5 items; adjusted reporting ratio: 1.04 [95% CI: 0.98–1.10]). ConclusionThis sample of diagnostic accuracy abstracts revealed suboptimal reporting practices without improvement between 2012 and 2019. The test evaluation field could benefit from targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve completeness of reporting in abstracts.

Multicenter evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of jaundice color card for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and practicality of the Jaundice color card (JCard) as a screening tool for neonatal jaundice. Methods: Following the standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) statement, a multicenter prospective study was conducted in 9 hospitals in China from October 2019 to September 2021. A total of 845 newborns who were admitted to the hospital or outpatient department for liver function testing due to their own diseases. The inclusion criteria were a gestational age of ≥35 weeks, a birth weight of ≥2 000 g, and an age of ≤28 days. The neonate's parents used the JCard to measure jaundice at the neonate's cheek. Within 2 hours of the JCard measurement, transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) was measured with a JH20-1B device and total serum bilirubin (TSB) was detected. The Pearson's correlation analysis, Bland-Altman plots and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used for statistic analysis. Results: Out of the 854 newborns, 445 were male and 409 were female; 46 were born at 35-36 weeks of gestational age and 808 were born at ≥37 weeks of gestational age. Additionally, 432 cases were aged 0-3 days, 236 cases were aged 4-7 days, and 186 cases were aged 8-28 days. The TSB level was (227.4±89.6) μmol/L, with a range of 23.7-717.0 μmol/L. The JCard level was (221.4±77.0) μmol/L and the TcB level was (252.5±76.0) μmol/L. Both the JCard and TcB values showed good correlation (r=0.77 and 0.80, respectively) and agreements (96.0% (820/854) and 95.2% (813/854) of samples fell within the 95% limits of agreement, respectively) with TSB. The JCard value of 12 had a sensitivity of 0.93 and specificity of 0.75 for identifying a TSB ≥205.2 μmol/L, and a sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.35 for identifying a TSB ≥342.0 μmol/L. The TcB value of 205.2 μmol/L had a sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.60 for identifying TSB levels of 205.2 μmol/L, and a sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.26 for identifying TSB levels of 342.0 μmol/L. The areas under the ROC curve (AUC) of JCard for identifying TSB levels of 153.9, 205.2, 256.5, and 342.0 μmol/L were 0.96, 0.92, 0.83, and 0.83, respectively. The AUC of TcB were 0.94, 0.91, 0.86, and 0.87, respectively. There were both no significant differences between the AUC of JCard and TcB in identifying TSB levels of 153.9 and 205.2 μmol/L (both P>0.05). However, the AUC of JCard were both lower than those of TcB in identifying TSB levels of 256.5 and 342.0 μmol/L (both P<0.05). Conclusions: JCard can be used to classify different levels of bilirubin, but its diagnostic efficacy decreases with increasing bilirubin levels. When TSB level are ≤205.2 μmol/L, its diagnostic efficacy is equivalent to that of the JH20-1B. To prevent the misdiagnosis of severe jaundice, it is recommended that parents use a low JCard score, such as 12, to identify severe hyperbilirubinemia (TSB ≥342.0 μmol/L).

Protocol for conducting a systematic review on diagnostic accuracy in clinical research

In the landscape of modern medicine, the ability to accurately diagnose various clinical conditions is paramount. As new diagnostic tools continue to emerge, their accuracy must be rigorously assessed before clinical implementation. This paper introduces a systematic review protocol tailored for diagnostic accuracy studies, drawing inspiration from a review on dysphagia screening in post-stroke patients. The protocol, designed with precision and transparency at its core, facilitates a thorough synthesis of evidence, employing tools such as the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) checklist for robust evaluation. The protocol emphasizes registration with the PROSPERO database and adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic search approach encompasses a comprehensive exploration of databases and precise keyword combinations. Distinctive inclusion and exclusion criteria, coupled with a dual-reviewer methodology, ensure the selection of high-quality studies. This framework has the potential to serve as a benchmark for systematic reviews in diagnostic accuracy, highlighting the importance of standardization, transparency, and adaptability in clinical research. This approach paves the way for a research methodology that delves deeper into diagnostic tools across various clinical scenarios, promoting evidence-based advancements in patient care.

Publications on the diagnostic accuracy of dermatopathology tests: A cross-sectional quality analysis.

Ancillary diagnostic tests are frequent in dermatopathology practice. Publications on their accuracy influence their utilization. The transparency and completeness of these publications are unknown. We performed a cross-sectional study on diagnostic accuracy studies in dermatopathology published between 2020 and 2022 for compliance with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). 14.67 ± 3.02 STARD items were reported in 62 publications (range, 9.5-23.5 out of the recommended total of 30). More items were reported in high-impact factor journals (16.01 vs. 13.32, p = 0.0002) and journals that endorsed STARD in their author instructions (17.22 vs. 14.11, p = 0.0039). Less than 10% of publications reported quantifiable hypotheses, sample size calculations, flow diagrams, or study registrations. The risk of bias by our analysis of QUADAS-2 criteria was high or uncertain for index test interpretation (36/62, 58%) and patient selection (44/62, 71%). Publications on dermatopathology tests are exploratory studies without prespecified hypotheses or study designs. They do not meet the criteria for transparent reporting. We suggest that medical journal leadership should consider updating their instructions with more explicit guidance on recommended manuscript elements.

Adherence to Complication Reporting for Randomized Controlled Trials Contained in Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently used in creating recommendations contained within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, investigations outside of hand surgery have reported that RCTs within CPGs infrequently report complications and harms-related data. Our purpose was to assess adherence to complication reporting and harms-related outcomes contained in the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension of Harms and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) reporting checklists for RCTs within the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS) CPGs for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We identified all RCTs within the AAOS CTS CPGs. All therapeutic RCTs and diagnostic studies were included. We used the CONSORT Harms Checklist criteria to assess adherence to the reporting of adverse events for therapeutic RCTs and the STARD criteria to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the articles. We defined adequate compliance as adherence to ≥50% of the checklist items. We identified 82 therapeutic RCTs and 90 diagnostic accuracy articles within the AAOS CTS CPG. For therapeutic RCTs, we found that the average compliance with the published checklists was 19%. For diagnostic studies, the average compliance with checklists was found to be 55%. Eleven therapeutic RCTs (13%) and 60 diagnostic studies (67%) were determined to have adequate compliance for the CONSORT and STARD checklists, respectively. Randomized controlled trials in the AAOS CPGs for CTS have low compliance with the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist. Although the overall adherence to the items published in the STARD statement for diagnostic accuracy evaluation remains higher, future efforts should be made to improve the adherence rates to both checklists. Improved standardization of complication reporting may aid in comparing outcomes across multiple clinical investigations of upper-extremity procedures.

Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta-research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement.

Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements. MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies. 106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub-items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean=11.5, standard deviation [SD]=2.5; median=11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean=10.1, SD=2.5; median=10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut-offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol. Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence.

P-318 Application of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 to research on blood biomarkers of endometriosis

Abstract Study question How completely reported are studies on blood biomarkers of endometriosis, according to their adherence to the STARD 2015 checklist? Summary answer Studies on blood biomarkers of endometriosis are often incompletely reported, with only an overall adherence rate of 28.5% to the STARD 2015 checklist. What is known already Laparoscopy, the gold standard diagnostic method for determining endometriosis, is invasive, expensive, requires anesthesia and is associated with risk of vascular/ visceral damage. Therefore, less invasive diagnostics are needed. Many studies have been published on blood biomarkers of endometriosis with variable methodological quality. To assess applicability and risk of bias of diagnostic accuracy studies, completeness of study reporting must first be ensured. STARD 2015 checklist was introduced to guide reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. The degree of adherence in studies on blood biomarkers of endometriosis to this 30-item STARD 2015 checklist is not known. Study design, size, duration Our systematic review included 126 studies from the 2016 Cochrane review on blood biomarkers of endometriosis. We added 84 more studies after updating the search in Pubmed, CINHAL and Web of Science, for the period May 2015- July 2021, with the keywords: endometriosis and biomarkers/ non-invasive diagnosis/ laboratory tests/ blood test, using the same eligibility criteria as in the Cochrane review. Totally, 210 studies were assessed for adherence to STARD 2015 checklist. Participants/materials, setting, methods STARD 2015 items were scored 1 if reported, or 0 if unreported. Each study received an adherence rate (percent of reported STARD items). Every item received individual item’s reporting rate (percent of its reporting across studies). Effect of publication year on study adherence and item reporting rates was examined by linear and logistic regressions, respectively. Journal impact factors were classified to tertiles and their relation to study adherence rate examined with one-way ANOVA. Main results and the role of chance Adherence rate was 28.5%, with 8.8± 3.1 reported items per study (range 2-18). Study adherence to STARD 2015 significantly increased with advancing publication years [r = 0.344 (95% CI 0.219 – 0.458), p &amp;lt; 0.001]. Journal impact factor had no effect on adherence to STARD 2015 (P = 0.274). Items with reporting rates &amp;gt;50% included #1 (identification as diagnostic accuracy study), #5 (prospective or retrospective), #7 (participants identification), #10a (index test), #10b (reference standard), #14 (diagnostic accuracy measures), #21a (disease severity), #21b (alternate diagnosis), and #22 (time between index test and reference standard). Items with reporting rates 20 to 50% included #6 (eligibility criteria), #8 (when/ where participants identifies), #12a (test positivity cutoff), #20 (participant characteristics) and #26 (limitations). Reporting rate &amp;lt; 20% seen in items #3 (background), #4 (hypothesis), #9 (consecutive /random recruitment), #13a/b (blinding of index test/ reference standard performers), #15 (intermediate results), #16 (missing data), #17 (analysis of variability), #18 (sample size), #19 (flow diagram), #23 (cross tabulation), #24 (diagnostic accuracy precision), #25 (adverse events), #27 (implications), #28 (registration), #29 (protocol), #30 (funding). Reporting improved for items: #1, #8, #10a, #10b, #12a, #14, #17, #18, #19, #20 and #25 and declined for items #9, #21a and #27 over publication years. Limitations, reasons for caution As the consequence of our choice to adhere to the methodology of the original Cochrane review, a limitation of our study is that we excluded non-English language studies and limited the search to the previously chosen 3 databases only. Wider implications of the findings With inadequately reported diagnostic accuracy studies, the derived evidence can be misleading. Our findings represent a baseline evaluation of the reporting status of studies on blood biomarkers of endometriosis. Our results can guide researchers and editors about poorly reported STARD 2015 items, aiming to improve their future reporting quality. Trial registration number PROSPERO # CRD42021259990

Delirium screening tools in the post-anaesthetic care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Delirium is a serious neurocognitive disorder among surgical patients in the post-anaesthetic care unit (PACU). Despite the development of screening tools to identify delirium, it is not clear which tool is the most accurate and reliable in assessing delirium in the PACU. To examine the diagnostic accuracy of delirium screening tools used in the PACU. A systematic literature search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus was conducted, using MeSH terms and relevant keywords, from databases establishment to 23 April 2021. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) tool. A total of 1503 studies were screened from the database search, four studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Six delirium screening tools used in the PACU were identified in the selected studies. Three studies evaluated screening tools in adult surgical patients without cognitive impairment and dementia. Two studies evaluated screening tools among patients who were scheduled for elective surgery. Review results indicated that two tools, the 4A's test (4AT; sensitivity 96%; specificity 99%) and the 3min diagnostic interview for the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM; sensitivity 100%; specificity 88%), had greatest validity and reliability as a screening tool for detecting delirium in the PACU. Results indicate the 4AT and the 3D-CAM are most accurate screening tools to detect delirium in the PACU. Further research is required to validate those tools among a broader surgical population, including patients with cognitive impairment, dementia and those undergoing emergency surgical procedures.

Artificial Intelligence for Computer Vision in Surgery: A Call for Developing Reporting Guidelines.

Artificial Intelligence for Computer Vision in Surgery: A Call for Developing Reporting Guidelines.

Developing Specific Reporting Standards in Artificial Intelligence Centred Research.

Developing Specific Reporting Standards in Artificial Intelligence Centred Research.

Prenatal Exome Sequencing in Recurrent Fetal Structural Anomalies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To determine the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES), a microarray analysis was carried out of fetuses with recurrent fetal structural anomalies (with similar anomalies in consecutive pregnancies). This is a systematic review conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. The selected studies describing ES in fetuses with recurrent fetal malformation were assessed using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) criteria for risk of bias. Incidence was used as the pooled effect size by single-proportion analysis using random-effects modeling (weighted by inverse of variance). We identified nine studies on ES diagnostic yield that included 140 fetuses with recurrent structural anomalies. A pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant was found in 57 fetuses, resulting in a 40% (95%CI: 26% to 54%) incremental performance pool of ES. As expected, the vast majority (86%: 36/42) of the newly identified diseases had a recessive inheritance pattern, and among these, 42% (15/36) of variants were found in homozygosity. Meckel syndrome was the monogenic disease most frequently found, although the genes involved were diverse. The ES diagnostic yield in pregnancies with recurrent fetal structural anomalies was 40% (57/140). Homozygous disease-causing variants were found in 36% (15/57) of the newly identified monogenic disorders.

Barriers to reporting guideline adherence in point-of-care ultrasound research: a cross-sectional survey of authors and journal editors

ObjectiveAlthough the literature supporting the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) continues to grow, incomplete reporting of primary diagnostic accuracy studies has previously been identified as a barrier to translating research...

Recognition of Psychogenic Versus Epileptic Seizures Based on Videos.

Ictal semiology interpretation for differentiating psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNESs) and epileptic seizures (ESs) is important for the institution of appropriate treatment. Our objective was to assess the ability of different health care professionals (HCPs) or students to distinguish PNES from ES based on video-recorded seizure semiology. This study was designed following the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) guidelines. We showed in a random mix 36 videos of PNES or ES (18 each) and asked 558 participants to classify each seizure. The diagnostic accuracy of various groups of HCPs or students for PNES versus ES was assessed, as well as the effect of patient age and sex. Measures of diagnostic accuracy included sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). The descending order of diagnostic accuracy (AUC) was the following (p ≤ 0.001): (1) neurologists and epileptologists; (2) neurology residents; (3) other specialists and nurses with experience in epilepsy; and (4) undergraduate medical students. Although there was a strong trend toward statistical difference, with AUC 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that were not overlapping, between epileptologists (95% CI 93, 97) compared to neurologists (95% CI 88, 91), and neurologists compared to electroencephalography technicians (95% CI 82, 87), multiple pairwise comparisons with the conservative Tukey-Kramer honest significant difference test revealed no statistical difference (p = 0.25 and 0.1, respectively). Patient age and sex did not have an effect on diagnostic accuracy in neurology specialists. Visual recognition of PNES by HCPs or students varies overall proportionately with the level of expertise in the field of neurology/epilepsy.

Adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD): a survey of four journals in laboratory medicine

BackgroundThe Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement has been updated in 2015. Many diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies have been published in medical laboratory journals, but their adherence to the updated STARD statement remains unknown.MethodsWe searched the PubMed database to verify studies published in 4 laboratory journals, including Clinical Chemistry, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Clinica Chimica Acta, and Clinical Biochemistry, in 2019. DTA studies were identified and their adherence to the STARD statement was assessed.ResultsA total of 45 studies were included in this analysis. Overall, 18 out of 34 STARD items were reported. The items (adherence rate) of sample size estimation (4%), adverse events (9%), protocol (9%), registration (16%), missing value (22%), indeterminate results (18%), and cross-tabulation (22%) were the most frequently unreported items.ConclusionsAdherence to the STARD statement in DTA articles published in laboratory medicine seems as yet unsatisfactory. Our study emphasizes the necessity to improve the reporting quality of DTA studies published in medical laboratory journals.

Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) guidelines: a development protocol.

Diagnostic accuracy studies play an important role in informing clinical practice and patient management, by evaluating the ability of diagnostic testing and imaging to identify the presence or absence of a disease or condition. These studies compare the relative diagnostic strength of the test or device with a reference standard, therefore, guiding clinical decisions on the reliability of the test, the need for further tests, and whether to monitor or treat a particular condition. Inadequate and incomplete reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies can disguise methodological deficiencies and ultimately result in study bias and the inability to translate research findings into daily clinical practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) guidelines are being developed in order to improve the accuracy, transparency, completeness and reproducibility of diagnostic accuracy studies in the speciality of Endodontology. The aim of this paper is to report the process used to develop the PRIDASE guidelines based on a well-established consensus process. The project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee of nine members (PD, VN, PA, AF, DR, SP, CK, MP, HD) to oversee and manage the project. The PRIDASE steering committee will develop the initial draft of the PRIDASE guidelines by adapting and modifying the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines, adding new items related specifically to the nature of Endodontics and incorporate the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The initial guidelines will consist of a series of domains and individual items and will be validated by the members of a PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of a minimum of 30 individuals who will evaluate independently the individual items based on two parameters: 'clarity' using a dichotomous scoring (yes/no) and 'suitability' for inclusion using a 9-point Likert Scale. The scores awarded by each member and any suggestions for improvement will be shared with the PDG to inform an iterative process that will result in a series of items that are clear and suitable for inclusion in the new PRIDASE guidelines. Once the PDG has completed its work, the steering committee will create a PRIDASE Meeting Group (PMG) of 20 individuals from around the world. Members of the PDG will be eligible to be the part of PMG. The draft guidelines and flowchart approved by the PDG will then be presented for further validation and agreement by the PMG. As a result of these discussions, the PRIDASE guidelines will be finalized and then disseminated to relevant stakeholders through publications and via the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org). Periodic updates to the PRIDASE guidelines will be made based on feedback from stakeholders and end-users.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Intracochlear Test Electrode for Acoustic Nerve Monitoring in Vestibular Schwannoma Surgery.

Cochlear implants (CIs) are a well-known hearing restoration option for patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS) in cases of neurofibromatosis type-2 and, more recently, for patients with sporadic VS. One of the main limitations when performing CI during VS surgery is the capability to preserve the acoustic nerve (AN) anatomically and functionally. Significant efforts have been directed toward developing an intraoperative testing method for monitoring the AN function to determine if, after tumor removal, it is suitable for conducting stimuli delivered by a CI. However, all these methods have significant limitations, and none of them have documented diagnostic efficacy. To overcome these limitations and to obtain reliable information before CI insertion, a minimally invasive intracochlear test electrode (TE) has been recently developed. This TE has demonstrated to be suitable to test the integrity of the AN before CI in patients without any residual hearing by recording electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses (EABR). The present study constitutes the next phase of this research, which was to determine the usefulness of EABR obtained intraoperatively with the intracochlear TE after the resection of a VS and to calculate its diagnostic accuracy to assess the functionality of the AN for CI. This was a prospective, multicenter study of diagnostic accuracy. It was conducted in three tertiary referral centers between January 2015 and 2018. This study was designed following the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement guidelines. The STARD statement are guidelines to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. The diagnostic accuracy of the EABR evoked with the intracochlear TE after tumor removal was studied. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. Patients eligible for the study were consecutive adults undergoing surgery for VS with simultaneous CI. The test under evaluation (index test) was the EABR obtained with the intracochlear TE after resection of the tumor. The reference test (gold standard) was the presence of auditory perception with the CI, defined as the presence of sound detection on an audiogram at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz of no greater than 50 dB. In all the cases, auditory perception was verified by the presence of a positive EABR evoked with the CI. Twenty-one patients were included during the study period; seven patients were excluded from the diagnostic efficacy analysis due to inconclusive EABR results or absence of the gold standard to compare (they did not finally receive the CI). Thus, the outcome of the gold standard was assessed in 14 cases: 9 cases had positive EABR, all of them obtained auditory perception with the CI, and 5 cases had negative EABR, only one case had auditory perception with the CI, which constitutes the only false negative of this study. Accuracy of the TE was 93% (95% confidence interval, 66 to 100%), sensitivity 90% (95% confidence interval, 71 to 100%), specificity 100% (95% confidence interval, 100 to 100%), positive predictive value 100% (95% confidence interval, 100 to 100%), and negative predictive value 80% (95% confidence interval, 45 to 100%). EABR elicited with the intracochlear TE had a diagnostic accuracy of 93% for predicting auditory perception with CIs after VS removal. These results suggest that the intracochlear TE can be used intraoperatively after tumor removal to test the integrity of the AN as a useful tool to complement the surgeon's perception for decision-making regarding implantation.

Compliance With Standards for STARD 2015 Reporting Recommendations in Pathology.

Lack of experimental reproducibility has led to growing interest in guidelines to enhance completeness and transparency in research reporting. This retrospective survey sought to determine compliance with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 statement in the recent pathology scientific literature. Two raters independently scored 171 pathology diagnostic accuracy studies for compliance with 34 STARD items and subcomponents. Overall adherence was calculated as a proportion after excluding nonapplicable items. After excluding nonapplicable items, there was 50% overall adherence to STARD reporting recommendations. In total, 15.44 ± 3.59 items were reported per article (range, 4-28 out of maximum possible of 34). There was substantial heterogeneity in individual item reporting, with greater than 75% reporting in eight of 34 items and less than 25% reporting in 11 of 34 items. Less than 10% of articles reported hypotheses, subgroup analyses for confounding, sample size calculations, subject flow diagrams, study registrations, and links to full study protocols. Significantly more items were reported in articles from journals that endorsed STARD (16.14 vs 14.84, P = .0175). These findings demonstrate incomplete reporting of essential items in pathology diagnostic accuracy studies. More vigorous enforcement of reporting checklists might improve adherence to minimum reporting standards.

Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

PurposeTo synthesize the literature on diagnostic test accuracy of chest radiography, CT, and US for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients suspected of having COVID-19 in a hospital setting and evaluate the extent of suboptimal reporting and risk of bias.Materials and MethodsA systematic search was performed (April 26, 2020) in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane to identify chest radiographic, CT, or US studies in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19, using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test or clinical consensus as the standard of reference. Two × two contingency tables were reconstructed, and test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were recalculated. Reporting quality was evaluated by adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), and risk of bias was evaluated by adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2).ResultsThirteen studies were eligible (CT = 12; chest radiography = 1; US = 0). Recalculated CT sensitivity and specificity ranged between 0.57 and 0.97, and 0.37 and 0.94, respectively, and positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranged between 0.59 and 0.92 and 0.57 and 0.96, respectively. On average, studies complied with only 35% of the STARD-guideline items. No study scored low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains (patient selection, index test, reference test, and flow and timing). High risk of bias in more than one domain was scored in 10 of 13 studies (77%).ConclusionReported CT test accuracy for COVID-19 diagnosis varies substantially. The validity and generalizability of these findings is complicated by poor adherence to reporting guidelines and high risk of bias, which are most likely due to the need for urgent publication of findings in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2020