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.

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 (ß = -6.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.62, -2.30, P < .05), the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (ß = -8.01, 95% CI -14.60, -1.41, P < .05) and Oral Diseases (ß = -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.