Cited by 1,124Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

Open access

Abstract

More and more systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies are being published, but they can be methodologically challenging. In this paper, the authors present some of the recent developments in the methodology for conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Restrictive electronic search filters are discouraged, as is the use of summary quality scores. Methods for meta-analysis should take into account the paired nature of the estimates and their dependence on threshold. Authors of these reviews are advised to use the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic or the bivariate model for the data analysis. Challenges that remain are the poor reporting of original diagnostic test accuracy studies and difficulties with the interpretation of the results of diagnostic test accuracy research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 70 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Abbate I, 1998, Anticancer Res, 18, 3803
  2. Paoluzzi M, 1999, Arch Ital Urol Androl, 71, 13

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Leeflang, M. M. G., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Deeks, Jonathan J.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2008-12-16
Volume
149
Issue
12
Pages
889-897
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W1973593314
Cited by
1,124
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 75 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 80
FWCI
16.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (U01CA079778)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
diagnostic accuracy, systematic review methodology, meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy, summary receiver operating characteristic, bivariate models, threshold dependence
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Information Storage and Retrieval

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