Siddiqui, M A R; Azuara-Blanco, A; Burr, J

Table 4

Summary score of STARD items

	Item	Yes	Partial*	No	NA†
*Item 6. Two publications did not mention whether the design was prospective or retrospective but in the text mentioned that the patients were consented for the study.
Item 8. Three studies only cited a reference for technical details of either the index or the reference test.
Item 9. Four articles described units and/or cut-off points but no rationale and were considered to partially fulfil this item. For example one study (table 2 no 7) classified glaucoma severity on the basis of mean deviations (MD) without providing any rationale or reference.
Item 11. Described that some information was provided to the investigators, although it was not known whether the investigators were masked or not
†Item 16. This item was classified as “not applicable” in a retrospective study that only included patients who had both the index and reference tests done (table 2 no 5).
Item 17. This item was classified as “not applicable” in a retrospective study in which frozen histopathological samples were re-analysed with a new diagnostic test (table 2 no 6)
Item 20. Reporting of adverse events was marked as “not applicable” because of the non-invasive nature and safety profile of the tests.
Title, abstract, and keywords	1	8	0	8	0
Introduction	2	16	0	0	0
Methods
Participants	3	13	3	0	0
	4	13	0	3	0
	5	8	0	8	0
	6	13	2*	1	0
Test methods	7	5	6	5	0
	8	11	3*	2	0
	9	8	4*	4	0
	10	6	4	6	0
	11	6	1*	9	0
Statistical methods	12	14	0	2	0
	13	2	0	14	0
Results
Participants	14	6	0	10	0
	15	12	0	4	0
	16	4	0	11	1†
Test results	17	9	0	6	1†
	18	10	1	5	0
	19	7	3	6	0
	20	0	0	0	16†
Estimates	21	4	12	0	0
	22	5	0	11	0
	23	4	0	12	0
	24	1	0	15	0
Discussion	25	16	0	0	0
Flow diagram		1

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals

This Article

Register for free content

Ophthalmology Jobs