Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38304392›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2024

Protocol for conducting a systematic review on diagnostic accuracy in clinical research.

Marco Sguanci, Stefano Mancin, Michela Piredda, Maria Grazia De Marinis

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
13.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marco SguanciDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit of Nursing Science, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Roma, Italy.
Stefano MancinDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Michela PireddaDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit of Nursing Science, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Roma, Italy.
Maria Grazia De MarinisDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit of Nursing Science, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Roma, Italy.
Università Campus Bio-Medico · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the landscape of modern medicine, the ability to accurately diagnose various clinical conditions is paramount. As new diagnostic tools continue to emerge, their accuracy must be rigorously assessed before clinical implementation. This paper introduces a systematic review protocol tailored for diagnostic accuracy studies, drawing inspiration from a review on dysphagia screening in post-stroke patients. The protocol, designed with precision and transparency at its core, facilitates a thorough synthesis of evidence, employing tools such as the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) checklist for robust evaluation. The protocol emphasizes registration with the PROSPERO database and adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic search approach encompasses a comprehensive exploration of databases and precise keyword combinations. Distinctive inclusion and exclusion criteria, coupled with a dual-reviewer methodology, ensure the selection of high-quality studies. This framework has the potential to serve as a benchmark for systematic reviews in diagnostic accuracy, highlighting the importance of standardization, transparency, and adaptability in clinical research. This approach paves the way for a research methodology that delves deeper into diagnostic tools across various clinical scenarios, promoting evidence-based advancements in patient care.

Indexed as

Diagnostic accuracy studyProtocolScreening toolSystematic reviewSystematic Review on diagnostic accuracy in clinical research

Identifiers

PMID38304392
PMCPMC10831087
OpenAlexW4391054165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.