EvaluationofthereportingqualityofchineseimagingdiagnosticaccuracystudiesbySTARD2015 / 实用放射学杂志
Journal of Practical Radiology
; (12): 815-818,845, 2019.
Article
in Chinese
| WPRIM (Western Pacific)
| ID: wpr-752447
Responsible library:
WPRO
ABSTRACT
Objective ToevaluatethereportingqualityofChineseimagingdiagnosticaccuracystudiesbyStandardsforReporting DiagnosticAccuracyStudies (STARD)2015.Methods AticalspublishedinChina,whichoriginatedfrom ChinaBiology Medicine (CBM),ChinaNationalKnowledgeInfrastructure(CNKI)andWanfangDatabasefromJanuary12014toApril82016wereretrievedfor statisticalanalysis.Keywordswereasfollows"Ultrasound","CT","MRI","X-ray"and"diagnosticstudy".Tworeviewersindependently screenedtheliteraturesandassessedtheincorporatedstudies.Excel2016wasusedtofigureouttheaccordancerateandSPSS (version 17.0)wasusedtoanalyzethedata.Results 152studieswerefinallyincluded.Thenumberandproportionofstudiesonimagingdiagnostic methodswere84 (55.26%)ultrasound,29 (19.08%)CT,16 (10.53%)MRI,and23 (15.13%)withthecombinationoftwoand moremethods.Thecoincidencerateandcorrespondingnumberofsingledocumentreportswereasfollows0%-10%,1report;11%-20%,4reports;21%-30%,45reports;31%-40%,74reports;41%-50%,24reports;51%-60%,3reports;and61%-70%,1 report.Therewasnosignificantdifferenceofcoincidencerate (P=0.09)betweendifferentimagingdiagnosticmethods.Also,there wasnosignificantdifferenceofcoincidenceratebetweentheoldentriesinSTARD2003andnewentriesinSTARD2015(P=0.34). Conclusion ThisstudyprovidesareferencebaselinefortheresearchersandthecliniciansonthequalityofChinesetestreportson imagingdiagnosticaccuracy.Itisshowedthat,thereportsondiagnosticaccuracyofUltrasound,CT,MRIandX-raypublishedbetween January1,2014andApril8,2016aregenerally middleandlow level.
Full text:
Available
Database:
WPRIM (Western Pacific)
Language:
Chinese
Journal:
Journal of Practical Radiology
Year:
2019
Document type:
Article