Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?

Objectives: To investigate whether encouraging authors to follow the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines improves the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Methods: In mid-2017, European Radiology started encouraging its authors to follow the STARD guidelines. Our MEDLINE search identified 114 diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology in 2015 and 2019. The quality of reporting was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the revised STARD statement. Item 11 was excluded because a meaningful decision about adherence was not possible. Student's t test for independent samples was used to analyze differences in the mean number of reported STARD items between studies published in 2015 and in 2019. In addition, we calculated differences related to the study design, data collection, and citation rate. Results: The mean total number of reported STARD items for all 114 diagnostic accuracy studies analyzed was 15.9 +/- 2.6 (54.8%) of 29 items (range 9.5-22.5). The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was significantly better in 2019 (mean +/- standard deviation (SD), 16.3 +/- 2.7) than in 2015 (mean +/- SD, 15.1 +/- 2.3; p < 0.02). No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09). Conclusion: The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies according to the STARD statement was moderate with a slight improvement since European Radiology started to recommend its authors to follow the STARD guidelines

Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?

Abstract Objectives To investigate whether making the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) mandatory by the leading journal ‘Radiology’ in 2016 improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Methods A validated search term was used to identify diagnostic accuracy studies published in Radiology in 2015 and 2019. STARD adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Each item was scored as yes (1 point) if adequately reported or as no (0 points) if not. The total STARD score per article was calculated. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests were used to evaluate differences of the total STARD scores between 2015 and 2019. In addition, the total STARD score was compared between studies stratified by study design, citation rate, and data collection. Results The median number of reported STARD items for the total of 66 diagnostic accuracy studies from 2015 to 2019 was 18.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 17.5–20.0) of 29. Adherence to the STARD checklist significantly improved the STARD score from a median of 18.0 (IQR 15.5–19.5) in 2015 to a median of 19.5 (IQR 18.5–21.5) in 2019 (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studies stratified by mode of data collection (prospective vs. retrospective studies, p = 0.68), study design (cohort vs. case–control studies, p = 0.81), and citation rate (two groups divided by median split [< 0.56 citations/month vs. ≥ 0.56 citations/month], p = 0.54). Conclusions Making use of the STARD checklist mandatory significantly increased the adherence with reporting standards for diagnostic accuracy studies and should be considered by editors and publishers for widespread implementation. Critical relevance statement Editors may consider making reporting guidelines mandatory to improve the scientific quality. Graphical Abstrac

Believing Processes during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis

Cognition, emotion, emotional regulation, and believing play a special role in psychosocial functioning, especially in times of crisis. So far, little is known about the process of believing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to examine the process of believing (using the Model of Credition) and the associated psychosocial strain/stress during the first lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic. An online survey via LimeSurvey was conducted using the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and a dedicated Believing Questionnaire, which assesses four parameters of credition (propositions, certainty, emotion, mightiness) between April and June, 2020, in Austria. In total, n = 156 mentally healthy participants completed all questionnaires. Negative credition parameters were associated with higher global symptom load (from BSI-18): narratives: r = 0.29, p &lt; 0.001; emotions r = 0.39, p &lt; 0.001. These findings underline the importance of credition as a link between cognition and emotion and their impact on psychosocial functioning and stress regulation in implementing novel strategies to promote mental health