Sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies and the diagnostic process.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Reporting of test comparisons in diagnostic accuracy studies: A literature review.Research synthesis methods · 2021
   Review
2. Correlations between Phlegm Syndrome of Chinese Medicine and Coronary Angiography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2015
   Review
3. Screening for HIV-associated peripheral neuropathy in resource-limited settings.Muscle & nerve · 2013
   Article
4. How to critically appraise an article.Nature clinical practice. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2009
   Review
5. Checklists to improve the quality of the orthopaedic literature.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2008
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.2006

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as