Colorectal cancer screening: why immunochemical fecal occult blood tests may be the best option.

BACKGROUND: There are many test options available for colorectal cancer screening. The choice of test relates to the objectives of those offering or considering screening. DISCUSSION: While all screening programs aim to detect disease early in order to improve the length and/or quality of life for the individual, some organizations and individuals prefer screening tests that offer the opportunity for cancer prevention. Others favor maximizing participation or the opportunity for shared decision-making, including discussion of information on test quality and availability. We propose three additional objectives for screening: minimizing harms, optimizing economic efficiency and maximizing equity of access to screening. SUMMARY: Applying these objectives to colorectal cancer screening, we advocate the use of immunochemical FOBTs as the preferred screening strategy, as it satisfies all three of these important objectives.

Fifteen years of bowel cancer screening policy in Australia: putting evidence into practice?

Bowel cancer kills over 4000 Australians each year. From the late 1980s to October 2005, research evidence guided the development of bowel cancer screening policy proposals, but political, financial and institutional constraints restricted implementation options. Since 2006, the Australian Government has provided a limited bowel cancer screening program, based on what the government deems it can afford, rather than on evidence of what is required to implement a successful population-based screening program. Even a partial program can be implemented in an evidence-based way, and failure to do so threatens to undermine the potential public health gains of a national bowel cancer screening program. To realise the expected public health gains from a national bowel cancer screening program, bowel cancer screening policy should return to its evidence-based beginnings, starting with an analysis of Australian age-specific cost-effectiveness data.

Antibiotic prophylaxis and recurrent urinary tract infection in children.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are widely administered to children with the intention of preventing urinary tract infection, but adequately powered, placebo-controlled trials regarding efficacy are lacking. This study from four Australian centers examined whether low-dose, continuous oral antibiotic therapy prevents urinary tract infection in predisposed children. METHODS: We randomly assigned children under the age of 18 years who had had one or more microbiologically proven urinary tract infections to receive either daily trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole suspension (as 2 mg of trimethoprim plus 10 mg of sulfamethoxazole per kilogram of body weight) or placebo for 12 months. The primary outcome was microbiologically confirmed symptomatic urinary tract infection. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed with the use of time-to-event data. RESULTS: From December 1998 to March 2007, a total of 576 children (of 780 planned) underwent randomization. The median age at entry was 14 months; 64% of the patients were girls, 42% had known vesicoureteral reflux (at least grade III in 53% of these patients), and 71% were enrolled after the first diagnosis of urinary tract infection. During the study, urinary tract infection developed in 36 of 288 patients (13%) in the group receiving trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (antibiotic group) and in 55 of 288 patients (19%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the antibiotic group, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.93; P = 0.02 by the log-rank test). In the antibiotic group, the reduction in the absolute risk of urinary tract infection (6 percentage points) appeared to be consistent across all subgroups of patients (P > or = 0.20 for all interactions). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term, low-dose trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with a decreased number of urinary tract infections in predisposed children. The treatment effect appeared to be consistent but modest across subgroups. (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12608000470392.)

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and/or the reference standard. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Group.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Group.

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalisability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart, and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in health care.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

BACKGROUND: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalisability of its results. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To comprehend the results of diagnostic accuracy studies, readers must understand the design, conduct, and analysis of such studies. The authors sought to develop guidelines for improving the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers better to assess the validity and generalizability of study results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy group steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and to extract potential guidelines for authors and editors. An extensive list of items was prepared. Members of the steering committee then met for 2 days with other researchers, editors, methodologists, statisticians, and members of professional organizations to develop a checklist and a prototypical flowchart to guide authors and editors of studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines on diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which the group produced an initial list of 75 items. This list was honed to 25 key items by group consensus and on the basis of published research on bias. A prototypical flowchart was developed as a tool for conveying information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference test, or both. Potential users reviewed the conference version of the checklist and flowchart and provided additional suggestions, which were then incorporated. CONCLUSION: Use of these carefully developed, consensus-based guidelines should enable clearer and more complete reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, as well as better reader understanding of the validity and generalizability of study results.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study, and to evaluate a study's generalisability. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two day consensus meeting, with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25 item checklist, by using evidence, whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the STARD checklist and flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The STARD initiative.

Our objective was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study, and to evaluate its generalizability. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Steering Committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, using evidence whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering group searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, using evidence, whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.

BACKGROUND: To comprehend the results of diagnostic accuracy studies, readers must understand the design, conduct, analysis, and results of such studies. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalizability. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, methodologists and statisticians, and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines on diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. The consensus meeting shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration.

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalizability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding, and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale, and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart, and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in health care.

The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration.

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalisability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in healthcare.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy.

BACKGROUND: To comprehend the results of diagnostic accuracy studies, readers must understand the design, conduct, analysis, and results of such studies. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines on diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. The consensus meeting shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.