Cited by 106Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract

Doust, J.A., Pietrzak, E., Sanders, S., Glasziou, P.P.·2005·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Background and objectives Methods to identify studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy are less well developed than for reviews of intervention studies. This study assessed (1) the sensitivity and precision of five published search strategies and (2) the reliability and accuracy of reviewers screening the results of the search strategy. Methods We compared the results of the search filters with the studies included in two systematic reviews, and assessed the interobserver reliability of two reviewers screening the list of articles generated by a search strategy. Results In the first review, the search strategy published by van der Weijden had the greatest sensitivity, and in the second, four search strategies had 100% sensitivity. There was "substantial" agreement between two reviewers, but in the first review each reviewer working on their own would have missed one paper eligible for inclusion in the review. Ascertainment intersection techniques indicate that it is unlikely that further papers have been missed in the screening process. Conclusion Published search strategies may miss papers for reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Papers are not easily identified as studies of diagnostic test accuracy, and the lack of information in the abstract makes it difficult to assess the eligibility for inclusion in a systematic review.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.011

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doust, J. A., Pietrzak, E., Sanders, S., & Glasziou, P. P.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Doust, J.A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
58
Issue
5
Pages
444-449
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036806176
Cited by
106
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
search filters, diagnostic accuracy, abstract screening, inter-rater reliability
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Acoustic Impedance Tests, Cardiac Output, Low, Otitis Media with Effusion, Review Literature as Topic, Observer Variation, MEDLINE, Natriuretic Peptides

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review