SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
QUADAS-3 Explanation and Elaboration: Guidance for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies
16 references·0 citing·42 second hop
QUADAS-3 Explanation and Elaboration: Guidance for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2026)QUADAS-3 Explanation and Elaboration: Gui…Evaluating medical tests: introducing the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (2023)Evaluating medical tests: int…Assessing risk of bias and applicability (2023)Assessing risk of bias and ap…QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2021)QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessin…GRADE Guidance: 31. Assessing the certainty across a body of evidence for comparative test accuracy (2021)GRADE Guidance: 31. Assessing…Verification bias (2018)Verification biasPreferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)Preferred Reporting Items for…Empirical Evidence of the Importance of Comparative Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (2013)Empirical Evidence of the Imp…Diagnostic accuracy studies: how to report and analyse inconclusive test results (2013)Diagnostic accuracy studies: …A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies (2013)A systematic review classifie…QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for …Modeling conditional dependence between diagnostic tests: A multiple latent variable model (2008)Modeling conditional dependen…Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways (2006)Comparative accuracy: assessi…No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies (2005)No role for quality scores in…Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews (2005)Bivariate analysis of sensiti…A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools (2005)A systematic review finds tha…Intermediate, Indeterminate, and Uninterpretable Diagnostic Test Results (1987)Intermediate, Indeterminate, …Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews (2003)A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases (2010)Identification of Developmental-Behavioral Problems in Primary Care: A Systematic Review (2011)Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy (2013)The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (1983)Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative (2003)Assessing the value of diagnostic tests: a framework for designing and evaluating trials (2012)GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy (2020)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003)Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry (2008)Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health (2015)Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates (2016)Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review (2017)Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests (1999)How depressed is “depressed”? A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis of optimal cut points for the Beck Depression Inventory revised (BDI-II) (2018)Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review (2018)Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard – An update (2019)Analysing and Presenting Results (2010)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance (2003)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses (2011)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)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Accuracy of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis (2019)Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas (2021)Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement (2021)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)QUAPAS: An Adaptation of the QUADAS-2 Tool to Assess Prognostic Accuracy Studies (2022)Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) and 2-item (GAD-2) scales for detecting anxiety disorders in adults (2025)Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews (2013)Meta-DiSc 2.0: a web application for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data (2022)Validity of the Spanish-Language Patient Health Questionnaires 2 and 9 (2023)Potential Roles of Large Language Models in the Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2024)The meaning of kappa: Probabilistic concepts of reliability and validity revisited (1996)Evaluating Bias and Variability in Diagnostic Test Reports (1999)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies14,163 cited
  • 2005Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews3,362 cited
  • 2018Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies3,196 cited
  • 2006Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways459 cited
  • 2005No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies337 cited
  • 2021QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies326 cited
  • 2013A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies283 cited
  • 2023Evaluating medical tests: introducing the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy228 cited
  • 2013Empirical Evidence of the Importance of Comparative Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy187 cited
  • 1987Intermediate, Indeterminate, and Uninterpretable Diagnostic Test Results159 cited
  • 2013Diagnostic accuracy studies: how to report and analyse inconclusive test results142 cited
  • 2008Modeling conditional dependence between diagnostic tests: A multiple latent variable model91 cited
  • 2005A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools79 cited

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

  • 2021GRADE Guidance: 31. Assessing the certainty across a body of evidence for comparative test accuracy69 cited
  • 2018Verification bias48 cited
  • 2023Assessing risk of bias and applicability47 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.