Summary
Objective
The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement provided guidelines for investigators conducting diagnostic accuracy studies. We reviewed each item in the statement for its applicability to clinical examination diagnostic accuracy research, viewing each discrete aspect of the history and physical examination as a diagnostic test.
Setting
Nonsystematic review of the STARD statement.
Interventions
Two former STARD Group participants and 1 editor of a journal series on clinical examination research reviewed each STARD item. Suggested interpretations and comments were shared to develop consensus.
Measurements and Main Results
The STARD Statement applies generally well to clinical examination diagnostic accuracy studies. Three items are the most important for clinical examination diagnostic accuracy studies, and investigators should pay particular attention to their requirements: describe carefully the patient recruitment process, describe participant sampling and address if patients were from a consecutive series, and describe whether the clinicians were masked to the reference standard tests and whether the interpretation of the reference standard test was masked to the clinical examination components or overall clinical impression. The consideration of these and the other STARD items in clinical examination diagnostic research studies would improve the quality of investigations and strengthen conclusions reached by practicing clinicians.
Conclusions
The STARD statement provides a very useful framework for diagnostic accuracy studies. The group correctly anticipated that there would be nuances applicable to studies of the clinical examination. We offer guidance that should enhance their usefulness to investigators embarking on original studies of a patient’s history and physical examination.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al., for the STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Clinical Chem. 2003;49:1–6.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7–18.
Rennie D. Improving reports of studies of diagnostic tests. The STARD initiative. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289:89–90.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. J Am Med Assoc. 1996;276:637–9.
Guyatt G, Rennie D. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature. Chicago, IL: AMA; 2002.
Moons KG, Harrell FE. Sensitivity and specificity should be de-emphasized in diagnostic accuracy studies. Acad Radiol. 2003;10:670–2.
Williams JW, Simel DL, Roberts L, Samsa G. Clinical evaluation for sinusitis: the value of a good history and physical examination. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:705–10.
Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 1987;6:411–23.
Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Vandenbroucke JP, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM. Case-control and two-gate designs in diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2005;51:1335–41.
Rao G, Fisch L, Srinivasan S, et al. Simel DL, Rennie D, eds. Does this Patient have Parkinson’s Disease? J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289:347–53.
Bachmann LM, Puhan MA, Riet G, Bossuyt PM. Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey. Br J Med. 2006;332:1127–9.
Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(8):763–70.
Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–87.
Simel DL, Halvorsen RA, Feussner JR. Quantitating bedside diagnosis: clinical evaluation of ascites. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:423–8.
Turnbull JM. Is listening for abdominal bruits useful in the evaluation of hypertension? J Am Med Assoc. 1995;274:1299–301.
Hasselblad V, Hedges LV. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychol Bull. 1995;117:167–78.
Scherer K, Bedlack RS, Simel DL. Simel DL, Rennie D, eds. Does This Patient Have Myasthenia Gravis? J Am Med Assoc. 2005;293:1906–14.
Simel DL, DeLong ER, Feussner JR, Matchar DB. Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Mak. 1987;7:107–14.
Holleman DR, Simel DL. Quantitative assessments from the clinical examination: how should clinicians integrate the numerous results? J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:165–71.
Funding
The authors received no funding for the preparation of this manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no financial conflict of interest with this manuscript. Drs. Simel and Rennie are the editors of the “Rational Clinical Examination Series” published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Drs. Rennie and Bossuyt were members of the original STARD Steering Group.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simel, D.L., Rennie, D. & Bossuyt, P.M.M. The STARD Statement for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Application to the History and Physical Examination. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 768–774 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0583-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0583-3