256 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28585154)
1. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in endocrinology: an audit of methods, reporting, and performance.
Spencer-Bonilla G; Singh Ospina N; Rodriguez-Gutierrez R; Brito JP; Iñiguez-Ariza N; Tamhane S; Erwin PJ; Murad MH; Montori VM
Endocrine; 2017 Jul; 57(1):18-34. PubMed ID: 28585154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review.
McGrath TA; Alabousi M; Skidmore B; Korevaar DA; Bossuyt PMM; Moher D; Thombs B; McInnes MDF
Syst Rev; 2017 Oct; 6(1):194. PubMed ID: 29017574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Methodological bias and variation of systematic reviews on diagnostic test accuracy].
Li ZX; Yang ZR; Xiang X; Gao P; Shu Z; Huang YS; Cao Y; Sun F; Zhan SY
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2016 Feb; 37(2):286-90. PubMed ID: 26917532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools.
Whiting P; Rutjes AW; Dinnes J; Reitsma JB; Bossuyt PM; Kleijnen J
J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Jan; 58(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 15649665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. High and unclear risk of bias assessments are predominant in diagnostic accuracy studies included in Cochrane reviews.
Di Girolamo N; Winter A; Meursinge Reynders R
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Sep; 101():73-78. PubMed ID: 29777798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
Håkonsen SJ; Pedersen PU; Bath-Hextall F; Kirkpatrick P
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 May; 13(4):141-87. PubMed ID: 26447079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of technologies used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery: a systematic review and decision-analytical model.
Burch J; Hinde S; Palmer S; Beyer F; Minton J; Marson A; Wieshmann U; Woolacott N; Soares M
Health Technol Assess; 2012; 16(34):1-157, iii-iv. PubMed ID: 22985954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Strategies to improve the credibility of meta-analyses in spine surgery: a systematic survey.
Evaniew N; van der Watt L; Bhandari M; Ghert M; Aleem I; Drew B; Guyatt G
Spine J; 2015 Sep; 15(9):2066-76. PubMed ID: 26002725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 7: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Manchikanti L; Derby R; Wolfer L; Singh V; Datta S; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2009; 12(6):929-63. PubMed ID: 19935980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The accuracy of diagnostic tests for GH deficiency in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hazem A; Elamin MB; Malaga G; Bancos I; Prevost Y; Zeballos-Palacios C; Velasquez ER; Erwin PJ; Natt N; Montori VM; Murad MH
Eur J Endocrinol; 2011 Dec; 165(6):841-9. PubMed ID: 21856789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.
Zeng X; Zhang Y; Kwong JS; Zhang C; Li S; Sun F; Niu Y; Du L
J Evid Based Med; 2015 Feb; 8(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 25594108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias.
Brito JP; Tsapas A; Griebeler ML; Wang Z; Prutsky GJ; Domecq JP; Murad MH; Montori VM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Jun; 66(6):633-8. PubMed ID: 23510557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy could not be reproduced.
Stegeman I; Leeflang MMG
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():161-166. PubMed ID: 32679314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
Leeflang MM; Deeks JJ; Gatsonis C; Bossuyt PM;
Ann Intern Med; 2008 Dec; 149(12):889-97. PubMed ID: 19075208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies.
Naaktgeboren CA; Ochodo EA; Van Enst WA; de Groot JAH; Hooft L; Leeflang MMG; Bossuyt PM; Moons KGM; Reitsma JB
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Jan; 16():6. PubMed ID: 26772804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Rice DB; Kloda LA; Shrier I; Thombs BD
BMJ Open; 2016 Nov; 6(11):e012867. PubMed ID: 27864250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.
van Enst WA; Scholten RJ; Whiting P; Zwinderman AH; Hooft L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Nov; 67(11):1192-9. PubMed ID: 24996667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy.
Leeflang MM
Clin Microbiol Infect; 2014 Feb; 20(2):105-13. PubMed ID: 24274632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evidence based evaluation of immuno-coagulatory interventions in critical care.
Afshari A
Dan Med Bull; 2011 Sep; 58(9):B4316. PubMed ID: 21893014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
