...
首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy: Journal for Clinical Use Biopsy and Technique >Quality reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastrointestinal journals: where do we stand on the use of the STARD and CONSORT statements?
【24h】

Quality reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastrointestinal journals: where do we stand on the use of the STARD and CONSORT statements?

机译:胃肠道内窥镜诊断研究的质量报告:我们坚持使用STARD和CONSORT声明吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Many papers have been published in the field of diagnostic endoscopy in the last few years. However, there are no reports on their quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate quality in recently published endoscopic articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study reviewed published articles on diagnostic endoscopy from 1998 to 2008. Quality was assessed and independently quantified by two observers using the STARD (STandards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials) statements. The interobserver proportion of agreement and kappa coefficient were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 120 articles comprising 10 randomized controlled trials and 110 diagnostic accuracy studies were evaluated. Most studies related to colonic polyp detection (30 %) or evaluation of Barrett's esophagus (29 %). Chromoscopy (45 %), fluorescence (21 %), and narrow-band imaging (14 %) were the technologies most often evaluated. The mean number of items (i. e. standard requirements) fulfilled by the randomized controlled trials was 15.7 +/- 2.2 out of 22 while for the diagnostic accuracy studies it was 12.2 +/- 3.6 out of 25. Reporting of study results was complete in 90 % of the randomized controlled trials, but only 65 % of the diagnostic accuracy studies presented a cross-table of results. The global proportion of agreement between observers was 97 % in randomized controlled trials and 95 % in diagnostic accuracy studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent publications in diagnostic endoscopy achieve only medium quality according to the available statements. It seems that it would be useful for authors, reviewers, and editors to be familiar with and apply these statements. The development of a specific checklist for diagnostic endoscopy publications might be helpful toward achieving better quality reporting in the future.
机译:背景与研究目的:近年来,在诊断性内窥镜领域已发表了许多论文。但是,没有关于其质量的报告。这项研究的目的是评估最近发表的内窥镜文章的质量。材料与方法:该研究回顾了1998年至2008年发表的有关诊断性内窥镜检查的文章。由两名观察员使用STARD(诊断准确性研究报告标准)和CONSORT(试验报告合并标准)声明对质量进行评估和独立量化。 。估计观察者之间的同意比例和卡伯系数。结果:共评估了120篇文章,包括10项随机对照试验和110项诊断准确性研究。大多数研究与结肠息肉检出(30%)或对巴雷特食管的评估(29%)有关。色谱法(45%),荧光(21%)和窄带成像(14%)是最常评估的技术。随机对照试验满足的平均项目数(即标准要求)为22中的15.7 +/- 2.2,而诊断准确性研究为25中的12.2 +/-3.6。90项研究结果的报告完成%的随机对照试验,但只有65%的诊断准确性研究提供了结果交叉表。在随机对照试验中,观察者之间达成一致意见的全球比例为97%,在诊断准确性研究中为95%。结论:根据现有的陈述,诊断性内窥镜的最新出版物仅达到中等质量。对于作者,审阅者和编辑者来说,熟悉并应用这些声明似乎很有用。为诊断性内窥镜检查出版物制定特定的检查清单可能有助于将来获得更好的质量报告。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号