The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“A ‘single screening’ approach is cost-effective and reduces workload [48], but risks missing studies which can impact the findings of the review [49].”
From Systematic review of caregiver burden, unmet needs and quality-of-life among informal caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Self-citationTowards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Self-citationConducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines
Devillé, W. L. J. M., Buntinx, F., Bouter, L. M., Montori, V. M., de Vet, H. C. W., van der Windt, D., & Bezemer, P. D. (2002) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-9 · Cited by 958
Developing Optimal Search Strategies for Detecting Clinically Sound Studies in MEDLINE
Haynes, R. B., Wilczynski, N. L., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J., & Sinclair, J. (1994) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1994.95153434 · Cited by 762
Edwards, P., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Roberts, I., & Wentz, R. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1190 · Cited by 340
The Value of Capture-Recapture Methods Even for Apparent Exhaustive Surveys
Hook, E. B., & Regal, R. R. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116400 · Cited by 174
Identifying Diagnostic Studies in MEDLINE: Reducing the Number Needed to Read
Bachmann, L. M. (2002) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1124 · Cited by 173
Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals
Devillé, W. L. J. M., Bezemer, P. D., & Bouter, L. M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00144-4 · Cited by 161
Goodness‐of‐fit based confidence intervals for estimates of the size of a closed population
Regal, R. R., & Hook, E. B. (1984) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780030310 · Cited by 100
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–106 of 106
Nama, N., Hennawy, M., Barrowman, N., O'Hearn, K., Sampson, M., & McNally, J. D. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14374745
Nama, N., Hennawy, M., Barrowman, N., O'Hearn, K., Sampson, M., & McNally, J. D. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14374739
Nama, N., Hennawy, M., Barrowman, N., O'Hearn, K., Sampson, M., & McNally, J. D. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14374730
Nama, N., Hennawy, M., Barrowman, N., O'Hearn, K., Sampson, M., & McNally, J. D. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14374736
Nama, N., Hennawy, M., Barrowman, N., O'Hearn, K., Sampson, M., & McNally, J. D. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14374742
(2026) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781394220243.biblio
Metadata
- 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
