STARD checklist for reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy

Section and Ite On page # Keterangan

Topic m
#
TITLE/ABSTRACT/ 1 Identify the article as a study of Ada pada Jurnal ini menjelaskan tentang studi akurasi yang
KEYWORDS diagnostic accuracy (recommend halaman 1 menguji kelayakan SPECT (single photon emission
MeSH heading 'sensitivity and computed tomography) sebagai pengganti MRI untuk
specificity'). diagnosis OVFC (osteoporotic vertebral compression
fractures).
The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility and
effectiveness of single photon emission computed
tomography (SPECT) as a replacement of
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of
osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF)
under special situation
INTRODUCTION 2 State the research questions or Ada pada Dalam jurnal sudah dijelaskan bahwa
study aims, such as estimating halaman 1 tujuannya ialah menguji kelayakan dan
diagnostic accuracy or baris efektivitas SPECT dalam diagnosis vertebra.
comparing accuracy between pertama
Adapun di dalam jurnal juga membandingkan
tests or across participant kanan.
antara keefektifan MRI dan SPECT. Pada
groups.
sebagian besar pasien tidak dapat didiagnosis
menggunakan MRI Karena beberapa alasan
sehingga sulit untuk untuk mengkonfirmasi
apakah itu vertebra yg parah atau tidak.

A large number of patients, however, cannot

METHODS
Participants 3 The study population: The
inclusion and exclusion criteria,
setting and locations where data
were collected.
be diagnosed by MRI due to various reasons,
causing great difficulties in the confirmation of
painful vertebrae. For imaging all bones,
single photon emission computed tomography
(SPECT) has been seen as an effective
method for detecting the early bone
metabolism and blood flow changes in painful
vertebrae, as well as a mass of radiocontrast
agent aggregated around the active sites of
bone metabolism.
Setting : Setting :
halaman 2
Waktu : Tanggal 10 Februari 2014 sampai 12
baris
Januari 2016
pertama.
Tempat : Tidak dijelaskan
Inclusion : Inclusion :
halaman 2 Pasien berjumlah 35 orang terdiri dari 13 laki-laki dan 22
baris 3-6. perempuan dengan OVCF. Rentang usia ialah 60 hingga
90 tahun dengan rata-rata berusia 70.1 8 tahun.
Exclusion : Spesimen yang diambil ialah 43 vertebra, termasuk 1
halaman 2 kasus T10, 1 kasus T11, 6 kasus T12, 9 kasus L1, 11
baris 12-14 kasus L2, 6 kasus L3, 8 kasus L4 dan 1 kasus L5.

Exclusion :
Pasien yang tidak disertakan ialah yang mengalami
fraktur patologis akibat kanker, tuberculosis atau infeksi,
dan tulang yang kekurangan mineral.
All patients were excluded pathological fracture caused
by cancer, tuberculosis or infections, and were diagnosed
as OVCF by X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and bone
mineral density (BMD).
 4 Participant recruitment: Was Pasien yang dipilih ialah pasien dengan tanpa gejala klinis
recruitment based on presenting pada tulang belakang dan saraf sebelum operasi. Pasien-
symptoms, results from previous pasien yang terlibat yaitu 13 kasus diimplantasi dengan
tests, or the fact that the cincin kontrasepsi, 14 kasus dengan plat baja, dan 8
participants had received the kasus diimplan dengan logam.
index tests or the reference
standard?
No clinical symptom of spinal and nerves was found
before operation.
These patients, involving 13 cases implanted with
contraceptive ring, 14 cases implanted with steel plate
and 8 cases implanted with metal stent, were diagnosed
by SPECT but not MRI due to the metal implants (except
titanium and degaussed metal).
5 Participant sampling: Was the Diambil secara dipilih berdasarkan kriteria ekslusi dan
study population a consecutive inklusi. Pasien-pasien yang terlibat yaitu 13 kasus
series of participants defined by diimplantasi dengan cincin kontrasepsi, 14 kasus dengan
the selection criteria in item 3 plat baja, dan 8 kasus diimplan dengan logam.
and 4? If not, specify how
participants were further
selected.
6 Data collection: Was data Prospective
collection planned before the Our results revealed that all painful vertebrae
index test and reference of
standard were performed patients were successfully diagnosed and this
(prospective study) or after
diagnosis is very
(retrospective study)?
meaningful for the following treatment. In
course of follow-up,
all patients expressed satisfaction of PKP and
no patients have
obvious complications, indicating all vertebrae
diagnosed by
SPECT were painful vertebrae.
Test methods 7 The reference standard and its A protocol detailing the above procedure was
rationale. approved by the ethics committee of our
hospital, and written informed consent was
obtained from all patients
8 Technical specifications of Tanggal 10 Februari 2014 sampai 12 Januari 2016.
material and methods involved Tidak dijelaskan referensinya
including how and when
measurements were taken,
and/or cite references for index
tests and reference standard.
9 Definition of and rationale for
the units, cut-offs and/or
categories of the results of the
index tests and the reference
standard.
10 The number, training and The result of SPECT is obtained by two
expertise of the persons experienced nuclear medicine physicians and
executing and reading the index two experienced orthopedic surgeons.
tests and the reference
standard.
11 Whether or not the readers of
the index tests and reference
standard were blind (masked) to
the results of the other test and
describe any other clinical
information available to the
readers.
Statistical 12 Methods for calculating or All data were processed by using paired
methods comparing measures of sample t-tests, with P 0.05 considered
diagnostic accuracy, and the statistically significant between two sets of
statistical methods used to
data, but P>0.05 is contrary.
quantify uncertainty (e.g. 95%
confidence intervals).
 13 Methods for calculating test
reproducibility, if done.
RESULTS
Participants 14 When study was performed,
including beginning and end
dates of recruitment.
15 Clinical and demographic
characteristics of the study
population (at least information
on age, gender, spectrum of
presenting symptoms).
16 The number of participants
satisfying the criteria for
inclusion who did or did not
undergo the index tests and/or
the reference standard; describe
why participants failed to
undergo either test (a flow
diagram is strongly
recommended).
Test results 17 Time-interval between the index
tests and the reference
standard, and any treatment
administered in between.
18 Distribution of severity of
disease (define criteria) in those
with the target condition; other
diagnoses in participants without
the target condition.
19 A cross tabulation of the results
of the index tests (including
indeterminate and missing
results) by the results of the
reference standard; for
continuous results, the
distribution of the test results by
the results of the reference
standard.
20 Any adverse events from
performing the index tests or the
reference standard.
Estimates 21 Estimates of diagnostic accuracy
and measures of statistical
uncertainty (e.g. 95%
confidence intervals).
22 How indeterminate results,
missing data and outliers of the
index tests were handled.
23 Estimates of variability of
diagnostic accuracy between
subgroups of participants,
readers or centers, if done.
24 Estimates of test reproducibility,
if done.
DISCUSSION 25 Discuss the clinical applicability
of the study findings.