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

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