STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Bossuyt, Patrick M.; Reitsma, Johannes B.; Bruns, David E.; Gatsonis, Constantine; Glasziou, Paul; Irwig, Les; Lijmer, Jeroen G.; Moher, David; Rennie, Drummond; Vet, Henrica C.W. de; Kressel, Herbert Y.; Rifai, Nader; Golub, Robert M.; Altman, Douglas G.; Hooft, Lotty; Korevaar, Daniël A.; Cohen, Jérémie F.

doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151516

Cited by 1,183 publications

(1,242 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,216

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is a prospective STARD‐compliant12 (see Appendix S4) multicenter phase III trial of an investigational sEMG monitoring system for the detection of GTCSs that assessed performance and tolerability in the EMU. The device was attached to the subject's biceps on either side for continuous monitoring (Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of generalized tonic–clonic seizures using surface electromyographic monitoring

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryObjectiveA prospective multicenter phase III trial was undertaken to evaluate the performance and tolerability in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) of an investigational wearable surface electromyographic (sEMG) monitoring system for the detection of generalized tonic–clonic seizures (GTCSs).MethodsOne hundred ninety‐nine patients with a history of GTCSs who were admitted to the EMU in 11 level IV epilepsy centers for clinically indicated video‐electroencephalographic monitoring also received sEMG monitoring with a wearable device that was worn on the arm over the biceps muscle. All recorded sEMG data were processed at a central site using a previously developed detection algorithm. Detected GTCSs were compared to events verified by a majority of three expert reviewers.ResultsFor all subjects, the detection algorithm detected 35 of 46 (76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61–0.87) of the GTCSs, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.03 and a mean false alarm rate (FAR) of 2.52 per 24 h. For data recorded while the device was placed over the midline of the biceps muscle, the system detected 29 of 29 GTCSs (100%, 95% CI = 0.88–1.00), with a detection delay averaging 7.70 s, a PPV of 6.2%, and a mean FAR of 1.44 per 24 h. Mild to moderate adverse events were reported in 28% (55 of 199) of subjects and led to study withdrawal in 9% (17 of 199). These adverse events consisted mostly of skin irritation caused by the electrode patch that resolved without treatment. No serious adverse events were reported.SignificanceDetection of GTCSs using an sEMG monitoring device on the biceps is feasible. Proper positioning of this device is important for accuracy, and for some patients, minimizing the number of false positives may be challenging.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of generalized tonic–clonic seizures using surface electromyographic monitoring

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…L1 dominance will then interact with other factors, which we discuss in the following. One possibility for a reduced diagnostic accuracy is that our final status assignment might have been too strict, see also Bossuyt et al (2015) on the impact of clinical group definition on accuracy measures. Note that Armon-Lotem and Meir (2016) use L1 and L2 tests with global scores, but additionally rely on parental or teacher concern.…”

Section: Dominance As a Factor For The Performance Of Bilingual Typicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Identifying Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Populations in Germany

Hamann

Ibrahim

2017

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the performance of 22 monolingual and 54 bilingual children with and without specific language impairment (SLI), in a non-word repetition task (NWRT) and a sentence repetition task (SRT). Both tasks were constructed according to the principles for LITMUS tools (Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings) developed within COST Action IS0804 and incorporated phonological or syntactic structures that are lin guistically complex and have been shown to be difficult for children with SLI across languages. For phonology these are in particular (non)words containing consonant clusters. In morphosyntax, complexity has been attributed to factors such as embedding and/or syntactic movement. Tasks focusing on such structures are expected to identify SLI in bilinguals across language combinations. This is notoriously difficult because structures that are problematic for typically developing bilinguals (BiTDs) and monolingual children with SLI (MoSLI) often overlap. We show that the NWRT and the SRT are reliable tools for identification of SLI in bilingual contexts. However, interpretation of the performance of bilingual children depends on background information as provided by parental questionnaires. To evaluate the accuracy of our tasks, we recruited children in ordinary kindergartens or schools and in speech language therapy centers and verified their status with a battery of standardized language tests, assessing bilingual children in both their languages. We consider a bilingual child language impaired if she shows impairments in two language domains in both her languages. For assessment, we used tests normed for monolinguals (with one exception) and adjusted the norms for bilingualism and for language dominance. This procedure established the following groups: 10 typical monolinguals (MoTD), 12 MoSLI, 46 BiTD, and 8 bilingual children with SLI (BiSLI). Our results show that both tasks target relevant structures: monolingual children are classified with 100% accuracy. Crucially, both our tasks distinguish BiTDs from MoSLIs and BiTDs from BiSLIs. The NWRT shows high accuracy and only minimal influence of language dominance. The SRT can be scored as "identical repetition" or as "target structure," the latter aiming for scoring the mastery of a syntactic structure, ignoring lexical and specific case or gender errors. Focusing on the latter measure, we examine individual cases of BiTDs with unexpected, low scores. We identify first-language dominance as a factor influencing performance but crucially find that testing in the home language in a heritage context might lead to unreliable classifications and that our procedure for determining the clinical group of bilinguals missed cases of selective impairments such as syntactic SLI.

show abstract

“…The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02324023) and carried out according to the guidelines in the Helsinki Declaration from 1975 [18]. The study was conducted following the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Guidelines [19].…”

Section: Patients/materials and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic ultrasonography and computed tomography scanning for preoperative staging of colonic cancer

Malmstrøm

Gögenur

et al. 2017

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Cited by 1,183 publications

References 23 publications

Detection of generalized tonic–clonic seizures using surface electromyographic monitoring

Detection of generalized tonic–clonic seizures using surface electromyographic monitoring

Methods for Identifying Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Populations in Germany

Endoscopic ultrasonography and computed tomography scanning for preoperative staging of colonic cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About