The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic Tests
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To introduce guidelines for the conduct, reporting, and critical appraisal of meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests and to apply these guidelines to recently published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests. DATA SOURCES: Based on current concepts of how to assess diagnostic tests and conduct meta-analyses. They are applied to all meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests published in English-language journals from January 1990 through December 1991, identified through MEDLINE searching and by experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION: Meta-analyses were included if at least two of three independent readers regarded their main purpose as the evaluation of diagnostic tests against a concurrent reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: By three independent readers on the extent to which meta-analyses fulfilled each guideline, with consensus defined as agreement by at least two readers. DATA SYNTHESIS: The guidelines are concerned with determining the objective of the meta-analysis, identifying the relevant literature and extracting the data, estimating diagnostic accuracy, and identifying the extent to which variability is explained by study design characteristics and characteristics of the patients and diagnostic test. In general, the guidelines were only partially fulfilled. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis is potentially important in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Those reading meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests should critically appraise them; those doing meta-analyses should apply recently developed methods. The conduct and reporting of primary studies on which meta-analyses are based require improvement.
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
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109 · cited 1×
“Publication bias may arise because of the selection for publication of papers with more extreme results because they are "more interesting" or "statistically significant" (22, 23).”
BackgroundQUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THE REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC LITERATURE1
GREENLAND, S. (1987) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298 · Cited by 1,644 · cited 2×
“Because other guidelines exist for meta-analysis in general (3-8), we emphasize those issues that are particular to assessing diagnostic accuracy.”
BackgroundMeta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267 · cited 4×
“Various procedures have been suggested to reduce the possibility of obtaining biased estimates of diagnostic accuracy, including independent review by two readers and resolution of differences by a third reader or by discussion between the original two readers (3, 8).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction
Lau, J., Antman, E. M., Jimenez-Silva, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., & Chalmers, T. C. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199207233270406 · Cited by 1,140 · cited 1×
“Publishing a full list of diagnostic accuracy and study characteristics (for example, design features, patient characteristics) for each primary study allows other researchers to decide if they agree with the judgments made and enables re-analysis applying different analytic techniques, using a subset of studies, or a…”
MethodSelf-citationAssessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias
Begg, C. B., & Greenes, R. A. (1983) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530820 · Cited by 708
Cited by
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science
HOPKINS, W. G., MARSHALL, S. W., BATTERHAM, A. M., & HANIN, J. (2009) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31818cb278 · Cited by 9,128
Mermel, L. A., Allon, M., Bouza, E., Craven, D. E., Flynn, P., O'Grady, N. P., Raad, I. I., Rijnders, B. J. A., Sherertz, R. J., & Warren, D. K. (2009) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/599376 · Cited by 3,638
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
“More details can be found elsewhere [9,12,14–18].”
Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Schmid, C. H. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008 · Cited by 2,517
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Irwig, L., Tosteson, A. N. A., Gatsonis, C., Lau, J., Colditz, G., Chalmers, T. C., & Mosteller, F.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1994-04-15
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 667-676
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2057631921
- Cited by
- 753
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 20.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.
