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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“We developed a protocol before commencing the review, following standard guidelines [12,13].”
From Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [12]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“The poor reporting of results and subsequent interpretation difficulties is a longstanding challenge of diagnostic test accuracy research [15].”
From Artificial Intelligence, Speech, and Language Processing Approaches to Monitoring Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
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
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Self-citationReitsma, 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
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., 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-citationDeeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
Self-citationSystematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006 · Cited by 2,184
Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves
Akobeng, A. K. (2007) · Acta Paediatrica · doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x · Cited by 1,882
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
Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine
Zhou, X., Sun, J., Pennello, G. A., Obuchowski, N. A., & McClish, D. K. (2011) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470906514 · Cited by 1,785
A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations
Rutter, C. M., & Gatsonis, C. (2001) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.942 · Cited by 1,510
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Abbate I, 1998, Anticancer Res, 18, 3803
- Paoluzzi M, 1999, Arch Ital Urol Androl, 71, 13
Cited by
Sorted by citations
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Self-citationShea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636
ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed
Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Caldwell, D. M., Reeves, B. C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J., & Churchill, R. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 · Cited by 2,272
Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S. W., Zhang, C., Li, S., Sun, F., Niu, Y., & Du, L. (2015) · Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1111/jebm.12141 · Cited by 2,082
Husby, S., Koletzko, S., Korponay‐Szabó, I., Kurppa, K., Mearin, M. L., Ribes‐Koninckx, C., Shamir, R., Troncone, R., Auricchio, R., Castillejo, G., et al. (2020) · Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · doi:10.1097/mpg.0000000000002497 · Cited by 1,255
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
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2008-12-16
- Volume
- 149
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 889-897
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- PMC
- PMC2956514
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
