King's College London

Research portal

Adequate Reporting of Dental Diagnostic Accuracy Studies is Lacking: An Assessment of Reporting in Relation to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Statement

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Michael Durkan, Ravi Chauhan, Nikolaos Pandis, Martyn T. Cobourne, Jadbinder Seehra

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)283-294
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Evidence-based Dental Practice
Volume19
Issue number3
Early online date27 Mar 2019
DOIs
Accepted/In press28 Feb 2019
E-pub ahead of print27 Mar 2019
PublishedSep 2019

Documents

King's Authors

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of full-text articles of dental diagnostic accuracy studies published in eight leading speciality dental journals in relation to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement. Methods The full articles of all included studies were assessed for their adherence to the 30-item STARD checklist by two researchers independently. A score of 0-2 was attributed to each item. Inter-rater agreement was assessed. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were carried out to evaluate differences in reporting qualities between journals and whether certain variables influenced reporting qualities. Results A total of 145 articles were identified. Full-article STARD checklist items relating to methodology and results were poorly reported. The overall mean quality score for full articles was 28.75. Articles published in the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery obtained the highest quality score. In the multivariate analysis, articles published in the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery had significantly higher reporting quality scores than those published in the European Journal of Orthodontics (β = −6.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −11.62, −2.30, P <.05), the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (β = −8.01, 95% CI: −14.60, −1.41, P <.05) and Oral Diseases (β = −6.72, 95% CI: −11.57, −1.86, P <.05). Reporting quality improved each year (P <.028). Conclusion Adherence of full articles to the STARD is suboptimal in dental journals.

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454