|
|
Publication
|
| Title of Article |
Quality Assessment of Research Articles in Nuclear Medicine Using STARD and QUADAS‐2 Tools |
| Date of Acceptance |
3 June 2014 |
| Journal |
| Title of Journal |
Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology Articles in Press Current Issue Journal Archive Volume Volume 2 (2014) Issue Issue 2 Issue Issue 1 Volume Volume 1 (2013) Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Biology |
| Standard |
OTHER (EBSCO) |
| Institute of Journal |
Nuclear Medicine Research Center of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences |
| ISBN/ISSN |
2322-5718 |
| Volume |
2 |
| Issue |
2 |
| Month |
Autumn |
| Year of Publication |
2014 |
| Page |
120-126 |
| Abstract |
Objective(s): Diagnostic nuclear medicine is being increasingly employed in clinical
practice with the advent of new technologies and radiopharmaceuticals. The report of the
prevalence of a certain disease is important for assessing the quality of that article.
Therefore, this study was performed to evaluate the quality of published nuclear medicine
articles and determine the frequency of reporting the prevalence of studied diseases.
Methods: We used Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) and Quality
Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS‐2) checklists for evaluating the
quality of articles published in five nuclear medicine journals with the highest impact
factors in 2012. The articles were retrieved from Scopus database and were selected and
assessed independently by two nuclear medicine physicians. Decision concerning
equivocal data was made by consensus between the reviewers.
Results: The average STARD score was approximately 17 points, and the highest score
was 17.19±2.38 obtained by the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine. QUADAS‐2 tool
showed that all journals had low bias regarding study population. The Journal of Nuclear
Medicine had the highest score in terms of index test, reference standard, and time
interval. Lack of clarity regarding the index test, reference standard, and time interval was
frequently observed in all journals including Clinical Nuclear Medicine, in which 64% of
the studies were unclear regarding the index test. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology had the
highest number of articles with appropriate reference standard (83.3%), though it had the
lowest frequency of reporting disease prevalence (zero reports). All five journals had the
same STARD score, while index test, reference standard, and time interval were very
unclear according to QUADAS‐2 tool. Unfortunately, data were too limited to determine
which journal had the lowest risk of bias. In fact, it is the author’s responsibility to provide
details of research methodology so that the reader can assess the quality of research
articles.
Conclusion: Five nuclear medicine journals with the highest impact factor were
comparable in terms of STARD score, although they all showed lack of clarity regarding
index test, reference standard, and time interval, according to QUADAS‐2. The current data
were too limited to determine the journal with the lowest bias. Thus, a comprehensive
overview of the research methodology of each article is of paramount importance to
enable the reader to assess the quality of articles. |
| Keyword |
Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine, STARD, QUADAS‐2 |
| Author |
|
| Reviewing Status |
มีผู้ประเมินอิสระ |
| Status |
ตีพิมพ์แล้ว |
| Level of Publication |
นานาชาติ |
| citation |
false |
| Part of thesis |
true |
| Attach file |
|
| Citation |
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Journal Publication
ไทย