Suppr超能文献

遵守 2015 年急性即时超声研究诊断准确性报告标准(STARD)。

Adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 Guidelines in Acute Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 1;3(5):e203871. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3871.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Incomplete reporting of diagnostic accuracy research impairs assessment of risk of bias and limits generalizability. Point-of-care ultrasound has become an important diagnostic tool for acute care physicians, but studies assessing its use are of varying methodological quality.

OBJECTIVE

To assess adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guidelines in the literature on acute care point-of-care ultrasound.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE was searched to identify diagnostic accuracy studies assessing point-of-care ultrasound published in critical care, emergency medicine, or anesthesia journals from 2016 to 2019. Studies were evaluated for adherence to the STARD 2015 guidelines, with the following variables analyzed: journal, country, STARD citation, STARD-adopting journal, impact factor, patient population, use of supplemental material, and body region. Data analysis was performed in November 2019.

FINDINGS

Seventy-four studies were included in this systematic review for assessment. Overall adherence to STARD was moderate, with 66% (mean [SD], 19.7 [2.9] of 30 items) of STARD items reported. Items pertaining to imaging specifications, patient population, and readers of the index test were frequently reported (>66% of studies). Items pertaining to blinding of readers to clinical data and to the index or reference standard, analysis of heterogeneity, indeterminate and missing data, and time intervals between index and reference test were either moderately (33%-66%) or infrequently (<33%) reported. Studies in STARD-adopting journals (mean [SD], 20.5 [2.9] items in adopting journals vs 18.6 [2.3] items in nonadopting journals; P = .002) and studies citing STARD (mean [SD], 21.3 [0.9] items in citing studies vs 19.5 [2.9] items in nonciting studies; P = .01) reported more items. Variation by country and journal of publication were identified. No differences in STARD adherence were identified by body region imaged (mean [SD], abdominal, 20.0 [2.5] items; head and neck, 17.8 [1.6] items; musculoskeletal, 19.2 [3.1] items; thoracic, 20.2 [2.8] items; and other or procedural, 19.8 [2.7] items; P = .29), study design (mean [SD], prospective, 19.7 [2.9] items; retrospective, 19.7 [1.8] items; P > .99), patient population (mean [SD], pediatric, 20.0 [3.1] items; adult, 20.2 [2.7] items; mixed, 17.9 [1.9] items; P = .09), use of supplementary materials (mean [SD], yes, 19.2 [3.0] items; no, 19.7 [2.8] items; P = .91), or journal impact factor (mean [SD], higher impact factor, 20.3 [3.1] items; lower impact factor, 19.1 [2.4] items; P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Overall, the literature on acute care point-of-care ultrasound showed moderate adherence to the STARD 2015 guidelines, with more complete reporting found in studies citing STARD and those published in STARD-adopting journals. This study has established a current baseline for reporting; however, future studies are required to understand barriers to complete reporting and to develop strategies to mitigate them.

摘要

重要性

不完全报告诊断准确性研究的结果会影响偏倚风险的评估并限制其普遍性。床边即时超声已成为急性护理医师的重要诊断工具,但评估其使用情况的研究其方法学质量参差不齐。

目的

评估 2016 年至 2019 年期间发表在重症监护、急诊医学或麻醉期刊上的急性护理床边即时超声文献中对《诊断准确性研究报告标准》(STARD)2015 指南的遵守情况。

证据回顾

通过 MEDLINE 检索了评估床边即时超声的诊断准确性研究,这些研究发表在重症监护、急诊医学或麻醉期刊上。评估了这些研究对 STARD 2015 指南的遵守情况,分析了以下变量:期刊、国家、STARD 引用、采用 STARD 指南的期刊、影响因子、患者人群、补充材料的使用以及身体部位。数据分析于 2019 年 11 月进行。

结果

本系统评价共纳入 74 项研究进行评估。总体而言,STARD 的遵守情况中等,有 66%(30 项中的 19.7 [2.9]项)的 STARD 项目得到了报告。与成像规格、患者人群和索引试验的读者有关的项目经常被报告(>66%的研究)。与临床数据和索引或参考标准的读者的盲法、对异质性的分析、不确定和缺失数据以及索引和参考试验之间的时间间隔有关的项目,报告的比例适中(33%-66%)或不频繁(<33%)。采用 STARD 指南的期刊上的研究(采用 STARD 指南的期刊上的平均 [标准差]为 20.5 [2.9]项,而非采用的期刊上的平均 [标准差]为 18.6 [2.3]项;P = .002)和引用 STARD 的研究(引用 STARD 的研究的平均 [标准差]为 21.3 [0.9]项,而非引用的研究的平均 [标准差]为 19.5 [2.9]项;P = .01)报告的项目更多。按国家和出版期刊进行的差异分析发现,报道的项目数量存在差异。按成像部位(腹部,平均 [标准差]为 20.0 [2.5]项;头颈部,平均 [标准差]为 17.8 [1.6]项;肌肉骨骼,平均 [标准差]为 19.2 [3.1]项;胸部,平均 [标准差]为 20.2 [2.8]项;其他或程序部位,平均 [标准差]为 19.8 [2.7]项;P = .29)、研究设计(前瞻性,平均 [标准差]为 19.7 [2.9]项;回顾性,平均 [标准差]为 19.7 [1.8]项;P > .99)、患者人群(儿科,平均 [标准差]为 20.0 [3.1]项;成人,平均 [标准差]为 20.2 [2.7]项;混合人群,平均 [标准差]为 17.9 [1.9]项;P = .09)、补充材料的使用(是,平均 [标准差]为 19.2 [3.0]项;否,平均 [标准差]为 19.7 [2.8]项;P = .91)或期刊影响因子(高影响因子,平均 [标准差]为 20.3 [3.1]项;低影响因子,平均 [标准差]为 19.1 [2.4]项;P = .08)方面,均未发现 STARD 遵守情况的差异。

结论和相关性

总体而言,急性护理床边即时超声文献对 STARD 2015 指南的遵守情况中等,引用 STARD 和发表在采用 STARD 指南的期刊上的研究报告更为完整。本研究确立了目前报告的基准;然而,未来还需要研究来了解完整报告的障碍,并制定减轻这些障碍的策略。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/735b/7195624/36408411da2a/jamanetwopen-3-e203871-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验