ArticleEpidemiology and health2014
An overview of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests accuracy.
Article in Epidemiology and health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Accuracy of real-time PCR assays for human papillomavirus using urine samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Association of peritumoral region features assessed on breast MRI and prognosis of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Early detection treatment response for head and neck carcinomas using intravoxel incoherent motion-magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Accuracy of FGF-21 and GDF-15 for the diagnosis of mitochondrial disorders: A meta-analysis.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic and clinical significance of antigen-specific pancreatic antibodies in inflammatory bowel diseases: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide for the Diagnosis of Childhood Asthma: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2019Pooled it
- Noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography for identification of ischemic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2016Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tests for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: An Umbrella Review.Journal of diabetes research · 2024Review
- Circulating microRNAs as promising diagnostic biomarkers for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.OncoTargets and therapy · 2019Article
- Health effects from exposure to dental diagnostic X-ray.Environmental health and toxicology · 2018Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of the UBCOncology letters · 2018Article
- What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Comparison of atopy patch testing to skin prick testing for diagnosing mite-induced atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2017Review
- Meta-epidemiology.Epidemiology and health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Cochrane Collaboration says that the Cochrane handbook for diagnostic test accuracy reviews (DTAR) is currently in development as per the Cochrane Collaboration. This implies that the methodology of systematic reviews (SR) of diagnostic test accuracy is still a matter of debate. At this point, comparison of methodologies for SR in case of interventions as against diagnostics would be helpful to understand DTAR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.