Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta‐research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements. Methods MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies. Results 106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub‐items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1, SD = 2.5; median = 10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut‐offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol. Conclusion Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence.

Keywords

• depression
• diagnostic test accuracy
• reporting guidelines
• screening
• STARD