The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for critical appraisal of diagnostic research and meta-analyses have already been published, these may be difficult to understand for clinical researchers or do not provide enough detailed information. METHODS: Development of guidelines based on a systematic review of the evidence in reports of systematic searches of the literature for diagnostic research, of methodological criteria to evaluate diagnostic research, of methods for statistical pooling of data on diagnostic accuracy, and of methods for exploring heterogeneity. RESULTS: Guidelines for conducting diagnostic systematic reviews are presented in a stepwise fashion and are followed by comments providing further information. Examples are given using the results of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of the urine dipstick in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections, and on the accuracy of the straight-leg-raising test in the diagnosis of intervertebral disc hernia.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Thompson, S. G. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351 · Cited by 1,017 · cited 2×
“For instance, the effect that each validity criterion has on the estimates of diagnostic accuracy and the influence of a priori defined study characteristics should be explored as potential explanations of the observed study-tostudy variation [23–27].”
BackgroundMethodYusuf, S. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470010097038 · Cited by 1,014
A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses
Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-116-1-78 · Cited by 914
Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods
Greenland, S. (1994) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117248 · Cited by 511
Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis of Data from Epidemiologic Studies: A Commentary
Colditz, G. A., Burdick, E., & Mosteller, F. (1995) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117644 · Cited by 245
Cited by
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
“This simplifies the overall approach to meta-anal as outlined in recent guidelines [17,35].”
MethodManea, L., Gilbody, S., & McMillan, D. (2012) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.110829 · Cited by 1,966
Fassnacht, M., Arlt, W., Bancos, I., Dralle, H., Newell-Price, J., Sahdev, A., Tabarin, A., Terzolo, M., Tsagarakis, S., & Dekkers, O. M. (2016) · European Journal of Endocrinology · doi:10.1530/eje-16-0467 · Cited by 1,566
Gilbody, S., Richards, D., Brealey, S., & Hewitt, C. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0333-y · Cited by 1,290
A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome
Broekmans, F. J., Kwee, J., Hendriks, D. J., Mol, B. W., & Lambalk, C. B. (2006) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dml034 · Cited by 1,258
Metadata
- Authors
- Devillé, W. L., Buntinx, F., Bouter, L. M., Montori, V. M., de Vet, H. C., van der Windt, D. A., & Bezemer, P. D.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2002-07-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-9
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2139129657
- Cited by
- 960
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 5.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-2-9
- The paper
- Devillé, W. L., Buntinx, F., Bouter, L. M., Montori, V. M., de Vet, H. C., van der Windt, D. A., & Bezemer, P. D. (2002). Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
