3. STARE-HI - Guidelines for authors ofIT evaluation studies
a) Why STARE-HI (Jan Talmon)
b) STARE-HI: Guidelines for authors
Motivation
• Good reports will be referenced
• Good reports have influence on the standing of the journal (IF)
• IJMI welcomes papers that evaluate HI in a clinical setting
Current Situation
• Variability in reporting
• Nearly all papers fall short on a few accounts
• Studies may be valid, but papers often raise more questions then being answered by the study
Main problems
• Status of system unclear
• Functionality of system unclear
• No account for sample size (power)
• Poor motivation for study design and methods chosen
• Poor discussion, no critical attitude
• Not clear what lessons are learnt
3. STARE-HI - Guidelines for authors ofIT evaluation studies
a) Why STARE-HI
b) STARE-HI: Guidelines for authors
Aim of STARE-HI
• STARE-HI = Standards for Reporting of Evaluation Studies in Health Informatics
• Provide guidelines on how to write an IT evaluation paper (a paper reporting on an IT evaluation study).
• To support• Authors when writing a paper• Reviewers and editors when assessing a paper
Development of STARE-HI (1/3)
• Only adaption of CONOSRT or comparable guidelines for RCT?
• Not really a solution, because• There is more than RCT • Socio-technical assessment• Qualitative studies• Specific issues of health informatics evaluaiton studies
Development of STARE-HI (2/3)
• Input for STARE-HI draft:
• Other recommendations such as CONSORT (RCT papers), STARD (studies of diagnostic accuracy), INAHTA (HTA reports), QUORUM (meta-analysis) etc.
• Own experiences as authors, reviewers and editors
Development of STARE-HI (3/3)
• Writing team of IT evaluation experts • EFMI WG• IMIA WG• AMIA WG
Structure STARE-HI
• Describes items that should be contained in the various sections of an IT evaluation paper
• Title and Abstract• Introduction• Method• Results• Discussion • Conclusion
Content of STARE-HI
• 1. Title• 2. Abstract• 3. Keywords• 4. Conflict of Interest• 5. Introduction
– 5.1 Scientific background– 5.2 Rationale for the study– 5.3 Ojectives of the study
• 6. Study context– 6.1 System details– 6.2 Location– 6.2 Study constraints, conditions and
context • 7. Method and material
– 7.1 Study design/method description– 7.2 Frame of reference– 7.3 Participants
• 7. Method and material (cont)– 7.4 Study duration– 7.5 Outcome– 7.6 Data acquisition– 7.7 Data analysis
• 8. Results– 8.1Baseline data– 8.2 Study flow– 8.3 Unexpected events– 8.4 Outcome data
• 9. Discussion– 9.1 Discussion of Findings– 9.2 Discussion of Methods
• 10. Conclusion• 11. References• 12. Appendices
How to proceed
• Discussion at MIE2006• Revision 1• Discussion through EFMI-WG/IMIA-WG website• Revision 2• Discussion at AMIA2006• Solicit comments of editors of MI and general medicine
journals• Revision 3• Final round for comments• Final version• Submission to MI and general medicine journals
