SZodixStudyAcademic Library
DashboardShelvesOpen accessMy libraryInboxNotesWriteLearnAlerts
More
Ask your libraryNotificationsQuick citeReview
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study
16 references·3 citing·33 second hop
Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study (2014)Incorporating quality assessments of prim…QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for …Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)Reporting and Interpretation …Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (2008)Systematic Reviews of Diagnos…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies (2008)Chapter 8: Assessing risk of …Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (2004)Sources of Variation and Bias…Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative (2003)Towards Complete and Accurate…The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration (2003)The STARD statement for repor…The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews (2003)The development of QUADAS: a …The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The Hazards of Scoring the Qu…Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests (1999)Empirical Evidence of Design-…Application of weighting methods for presenting risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies (2021)Application of weighting meth…Methodological quality is underrated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health psychology (2017)Methodological quality is und…DETECTION OF ANXIETY DISORDERS IN PRIMARY CARE: A META-ANALYSIS OF ASSISTED AND UNASSISTED DIAGNOSES (2015)DETECTION OF ANXIETY DISORDER…Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials (2001)Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews (2005)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement (2015)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Analysing and Presenting Results (2010)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review (2015)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement63,979 cited
  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.44,857 cited
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement19,577 cited
  • 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies14,163 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2008Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies3,791 cited
  • 2003The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews3,593 cited
  • 2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative3,215 cited
  • 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
  • 1999Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests1,860 cited
  • 2003The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration1,214 cited
  • 2008

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
1,124 cited
  • 2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes828 cited
  • 2004Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy800 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2015DETECTION OF ANXIETY DISORDERS IN PRIMARY CARE: A META-ANALYSIS OF ASSISTED AND UNASSISTED DIAGNOSES76 cited
    • 2017Methodological quality is underrated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health psychology15 cited
    • 2021Application of weighting methods for presenting risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies14 cited