SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy?
16 references·1 citing·51 second hop
Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy? (2023)Has the quality of reporting improved sin…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…STARD for Abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts (2017)STARD for Abstracts: essentia…STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration (2016)STARD 2015 guidelines for rep…STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2015)STARD 2015: An Updated List o…Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD (2013)Reporting quality of diagnost…Overinterpretation and Misreporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Evidence of “Spin” (2013)Overinterpretation and Misrep…The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews (2012)The nuts and bolts of PROSPER…QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for …Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network (2010)Transparent and accurate repo…The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement (2006)The quality of diagnostic acc…Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies (2006)Evidence of bias and variatio…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…Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable (2002)Evidence base of clinical dia…Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals (2000)Publications on diagnostic te…The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The Measurement of Observer A…Assessment of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guideline adherence in medical imaging diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2023 (2024)Assessment of Standards for R…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 Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests (1999)The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration (2003)A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies (2006)Screening for Depression in Medical Settings with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis (2007)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)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)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)Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence (2009)Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence (2013)Screening for Depression in the General Population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis (2016)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (2008)Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (2010)Reporting scoping reviews—PRISMA ScR extension (2020)A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) (2021)A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas (2022)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis (2013)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas (2021)A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. (1994)Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): Initial Reliability and Validity Data (1997)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures (2000)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration (2015)Abstract screening using the automated tool Rayyan: results of effectiveness in three diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews (2022)Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 (2024)REFORMS: Consensus-based Recommendations for Machine-learning-based Science (2024)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist (2020)Development and validation of a risk-of-bias tool for assessing in vitro studies conducted in dentistry: The QUIN (2022)Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews107,380 cited
  • 1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data81,000 cited
  • 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies14,163 cited
  • 2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative3,215 cited
  • 2016STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration2,564 cited
  • 2012The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews1,430 cited
  • 2015STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies983 cited
  • 2004Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy800 cited
  • 2006Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies612 cited
  • 2010Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network589 cited
  • 2002Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable246 cited
  • 2006The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement235 cited
  • 2000Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals161 cited
  • 2013

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

Overinterpretation and Misreporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Evidence of “Spin”
158 cited
  • 2013Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD119 cited
  • 2017STARD for Abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts77 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2024Assessment of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guideline adherence in medical imaging diagnostic accuracy studies published in 202311 cited