Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline

16 references·11 citing·43 second hop

FromToDepth

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 Statement.44,857 cited
2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies14,163 cited
2018Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies3,196 cited
2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews891 cited
2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
2014PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews567 cited
2013A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies283 cited
2013Association of Study Quality with Completeness of Reporting: Have Completeness of Reporting and Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Major Radiology Journals Changed Since Publication of the PRISMA Statement?146 cited
2017Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review142 cited
2016Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines137 cited
2012

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

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

105 cited

2015Pitfalls of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Imaging Research99 cited

2016Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 201584 cited

2017Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of “Spin” in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies72 cited

Cited by

2019Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA)35 cited
2023Searching for and selecting studies29 cited
2020Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy23 cited
2020Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of “Spin” in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High–Impact Factor Journals23 cited
2019Methods and reporting of systematic reviews of comparative accuracy were deficient: a methodological survey and proposed guidance22 cited
2019Reporting guidelines for health research: protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library19 cited
2020Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews19 cited
2021Barriers to reporting guideline adherence in point-of-care ultrasound research: a cross-sectional survey of authors and journal editors11 cited
2023How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide10 cited
2022Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) of Radiological Articles Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline10 cited
2023Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study8 cited