Daniël A. Korevaar

STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?

The biomedical research complex has been estimated to consume almost a quarter of a trillion US dollars every year. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that a high proportion of this sum is avoidably wasted. In 2014, The Lancet published a series of five reviews showing how dividends from the investment in research might be increased from the relevance and priorities of the questions being asked, to how the research is designed, conducted, and reported. 17 recommendations were addressed to five main stakeholders-funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions, and researchers. This Review provides some initial observations on the possible effects of the Series, which seems to have provoked several important discussions and is on the agendas of several key players. Some examples of individual initiatives show ways to reduce waste and increase value in biomedical research. This momentum will probably move strongly across stakeholder groups, if collaborative relationships evolve between key players; further important work is needed to increase research value. A forthcoming meeting in Edinburgh, UK, will provide an initial forum within which to foster the collaboration needed.

STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard. Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.

Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Eosinophilic airway inflammation is associated with increased corticosteroid responsiveness in asthma, but direct airway sampling methods are invasive or laborious. Minimally invasive markers for airway eosinophilia could present an alternative method, but estimates of their accuracy vary. METHODS We did a systematic review and searched Medline, Embase, and PubMed for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of markers against a reference standard of induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, or endobronchial biopsy in patients with asthma or suspected asthma (for inception to Aug 1, 2014). Unpublished results were obtained by contacting authors of studies that did not report on diagnostic accuracy, but had data from which estimates could be calculated. We assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2. We used meta-analysis to produce summary estimates of accuracy. FINDINGS We included 32 studies: 24 in adults and eight in children. Of these, 26 (81%) showed risk of bias in at least one domain. In adults, three markers had extensively been investigated: fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (17 studies; 3216 patients; summary area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] 0·75 [95% CI 0·72-0·78]); blood eosinophils (14 studies; 2405 patients; 0·78 [0·74-0·82]); total IgE (seven studies; 942 patients; 0·65 [0·61-0·69]). In children, only FeNO (six studies; 349 patients; summary AUC 0·81 [0·72-0·89]) and blood eosinophils (three studies; 192 patients; 0·78 [0·71-0·85]) had been investigated in more than one study. Induced sputum was most frequently used as the reference standard. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity in detecting sputum eosinophils of 3% or more in adults were: 0·66 (0·57-0·75) and 0·76 (0·65-0·85) for FeNO; 0·71 (0·65-0·76) and 0·77 (0·70-0·83) for blood eosinophils; and 0·64 (0·42-0·81) and 0·71 (0·42-0·89) for IgE. INTERPRETATION FeNO, blood eosinophils, and IgE have moderate diagnostic accuracy. Their use as a single surrogate marker for airway eosinophilia in patients with asthma will lead to a substantial number of false positives or false negatives. FUNDING None.

Combined endobronchial and esophageal endosonography for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, in cooperation with the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS)

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), produced in cooperation with the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). It addresses the benefit and burden associated with combined endobronchial and esophageal mediastinal nodal staging of lung cancer. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) approach was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.The article has been co-published with permission in the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and the European Respiratory Journal. Recommendations 1 For mediastinal nodal staging in patients with suspected or proven non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with abnormal mediastinal and/or hilar nodes at computed tomography (CT) and/or positron emission tomography (PET), endosonography is recommended over surgical staging as the initial procedure (Recommendation grade A). The combination of endobronchial ultrasound with real-time guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) and endoscopic (esophageal) ultrasound with fine needle aspiration, with use of a gastrointestinal (EUS-FNA) or EBUS (EUS-B-FNA) scope, is preferred over either test alone (Recommendation grade C). If the combination of EBUS and EUS-(B) is not available, we suggest that EBUS alone is acceptable (Recommendation grade C).Subsequent surgical staging is recommended, when endosonography does not show malignant nodal involvement (Recommendation grade B). 2 For mediastinal nodal staging in patients with suspected or proven non-small-cell peripheral lung cancer without mediastinal involvement at CT or CT-PET, we suggest that EBUS-TBNA and/or EUS-(B)-FNA should be performed before therapy, provided that one or more of the following conditions is present: (i) enlarged or fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET-avid ipsilateral hilar nodes; (ii) primary tumor without FDG uptake; (iii) tumor size ≥ 3 cm (Fig. 3a - c) (Recommendation grade C). If endosonography does not show malignant nodal involvement, we suggest that mediastinoscopy is considered, especially in suspected N1 disease (Recommendation grade C).If PET is not available and CT does not reveal enlarged hilar or mediastinal lymph nodes, we suggest performance of EBUS-TBNA and/or EUS-(B)-FNA and/or surgical staging (Recommendation grade C). 3 In patients with suspected or proven < 3 cm peripheral NSCLC with normal mediastinal and hilar nodes at CT and/or PET, we suggest initiation of therapy without further mediastinal staging (Recommendation grade C). 4 For mediastinal staging in patients with centrally located suspected or proven NSCLC without mediastinal or hilar involvement at CT and/or CT-PET, we suggest performance of EBUS-TBNA, with or without EUS-(B)-FNA, in preference to surgical staging (Fig. 4) (Recommendation grade D). If endosonography does not show malignant nodal involvement, mediastinoscopy may be considered (Recommendation grade D). 5 For mediastinal nodal restaging following neoadjuvant therapy, EBUS-TBNA and/or EUS-(B)-FNA is suggested for detection of persistent nodal disease, but, if this is negative, subsequent surgical staging is indicated (Recommendation grade C). 6 A complete assessment of mediastinal and hilar nodal stations, and sampling of at least three different mediastinal nodal stations (4 R, 4 L, 7) (Fig. 1, Fig. 5) is suggested in patients with NSCLC and an abnormal mediastinum by CT or CT-PET (Recommendation grade D). 7 For diagnostic purposes, in patients with a centrally located lung tumor that is not visible at conventional bronchoscopy, endosonography is suggested, provided the tumor is located immediately adjacent to the larger airways (EBUS) or esophagus (EUS-(B)) (Recommendation grade D). 8 In patients with a left adrenal gland suspected for distant metastasis we suggest performance of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (Recommendation grade C), while the use of EUS-B with a transgastric approach is at present experimental (Recommendation grade D). 9 For optimal endosonographic staging of lung cancer, we suggest that individual endoscopists should be trained in both EBUS and EUS-B in order to perform complete endoscopic staging in one session (Recommendation grade D). 10 We suggest that new trainees in endosonography should follow a structured training curriculum consisting of simulation-based training followed by supervised practice on patients (Recommendation grade D). 11 We suggest that competency in EBUS-TBNA and EUS-(B)-FNA for staging lung cancer be assessed using available validated assessment tools (Recommendation Grade D).

Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD

Background Poor reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies impedes an objective appraisal of the clinical performance of diagnostic tests. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement, first published in 2003, aims to improve the reporting quality of such studies. Objective To investigate to which extent published diagnostic accuracy studies adhere to the 25-item STARD checklist, whether the reporting quality has improved after STARDs launch and whether there are any factors associated with adherence. Study selection We performed a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Methodology Register of the Cochrane Library for studies that primarily aimed to examine the reporting quality of articles on diagnostic accuracy studies in humans by evaluating adherence to STARD. Study selection was performed in duplicate; data were extracted by one author and verified by the second author. Findings We included 16 studies, analysing 1496 articles in total. Three studies investigated adherence in a general sample of diagnostic accuracy studies; the others did so in a specific field of research. The overall mean number of items reported varied from 9.1 to 14.3 between 13 evaluations that evaluated all 25 STARD items. Six studies quantitatively compared post-STARD with pre-STARD articles. Combining these results in a random-effects meta-analysis revealed a modest but significant increase in adherence after STARDs introduction (mean difference 1.41 items (95% CI 0.65 to 2.18)). Conclusions The reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies was consistently moderate, at least through halfway the 2000s. Our results suggest a small improvement in the years after the introduction of STARD. Adherence to STARD should be further promoted among researchers, editors and peer reviewers.

Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions

Context Publication bias jeopardizes evidence-based medicine, mainly through biased literature syntheses. Publication bias may also affect laboratory animal research, but evidence is scarce. Objectives To assess the opinion of laboratory animal researchers on the magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions for publication bias. And to explore the impact of size of the animals used, seniority of the respondent, working in a for-profit organization and type of research (fundamental, pre-clinical, or both) on those opinions. Design Internet-based survey. Setting All animal laboratories in The Netherlands. Participants Laboratory animal researchers. Main Outcome Measure(s) Median (interquartile ranges) strengths of beliefs on 5 and 10-point scales (1: totally unimportant to 5 or 10: extremely important). Results Overall, 454 researchers participated. They considered publication bias a problem in animal research (7 (5 to 8)) and thought that about 50% (32–70) of animal experiments are published. Employees (n = 21) of for-profit organizations estimated that 10% (5 to 50) are published. Lack of statistical significance (4 (4 to 5)), technical problems (4 (3 to 4)), supervisors (4 (3 to 5)) and peer reviewers (4 (3 to 5)) were considered important reasons for non-publication (all on 5-point scales). Respondents thought that mandatory publication of study protocols and results, or the reasons why no results were obtained, may increase scientific progress but expected increased bureaucracy. These opinions did not depend on size of the animal used, seniority of the respondent or type of research. Conclusions Non-publication of “negative” results appears to be prevalent in laboratory animal research. If statistical significance is indeed a main driver of publication, the collective literature on animal experimentation will be biased. This will impede the performance of valid literature syntheses. Effective, yet efficient systems should be explored to counteract selective reporting of laboratory animal research.

Biomarkers to identify sputum eosinophilia in different adult asthma phenotypes

Several biomarkers have been used to assess sputum eosinophilia in asthma. It has been suggested that the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers might differ between asthma phenotypes. We investigated the accuracy of biomarkers in detecting sputum eosinophilia (≥3%) in different adult asthma phenotypes. Levels of eosinophils in blood and sputum, exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FeNO) and total immunoglobulin (Ig)E from 336 adult patients, enrolled in three prospective observational clinical trials and recruited at five pulmonology outpatient departments, were analysed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) for detecting sputum eosinophilia were calculated and compared between severe and mild, obese and nonobese, atopic and nonatopic and (ex-)smoking and never-smoking asthma patients. Sputum eosinophilia was present in 116 patients (35%). In the total group the AUC was 0.83 (95% CI 0.78–0.87) for blood eosinophils, 0.82 (0.77–0.87) for FeNO and 0.69 (0.63–0.75) for total IgE. AUCs were similar for blood eosinophils and FeNO between different phenotypes. Total IgE was less accurate in detecting sputum eosinophilia in atopic and obese patients than in nonatopic and nonobese patients. Blood eosinophils and FeNO had comparable diagnostic accuracy (superior to total IgE) in identifying sputum eosinophilia in adult asthma patients, irrespective of asthma phenotype such as severe, nonatopic, obese and smoking-related asthma. FeNO and blood eosinophils can be used to detect sputum eosinophilia in adult asthma patients regardless of phenotype http://ow.ly/MnGqF

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments

In 2006, Peters et al. identified 86 systematic reviews (SRs) of laboratory animal experiments (LAEs). They found 46 LAE meta-analyses (MAs), often of poor quality. Six of these 46 MAs tried to assess publication bias. Publication bias is the phenomenon of an experiments results determining its likelihood of publication, often over-representing positive findings. As such, publication bias is the Achilles heel of any SR. Since researchers increasingly become aware of the fact that SRs directly support the ‘three Rs’, we expect the number of SRs of LAEs will sharply increase. Therefore, it is useful to see how publication bias is dealt with. Our objective was to identify all SRs and MAs of LAEs where the purpose was to inform human health published between July 2005 and 2010 with special attention to MAs’ quality features and publication bias. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Toxline and ScienceDirect from July 2005 to 2010, updating Peters’ review. LAEs not directly informing human health or concerning fundamental biology were excluded. We found 2780 references of which 163 met the inclusion criteria: 158 SRs, of which 30 performed an MA, and five MAs without an SR. The number of SRs roughly doubled every three years since 1997. The number of MAs roughly doubled every five years since 1999. Compared with before July 2005, more MAs were preceded by SR and reported on (quality) features of included studies and heterogeneity. A statistically significant proportion of MAs considered publication bias (26/35) and tried to formally assess it (21 /35).