These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32615208)
21. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension. Rathbone J; Carter M; Hoffmann T; Glasziou P Syst Rev; 2016 Feb; 5():27. PubMed ID: 26862061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. An overview of the design and methods for retrieving high-quality studies for clinical care. Wilczynski NL; Morgan D; Haynes RB; BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2005 Jun; 5():20. PubMed ID: 15969765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Increased workload for systematic review literature searches of diagnostic tests compared with treatments: challenges and opportunities. Petersen H; Poon J; Poon SK; Loy C JMIR Med Inform; 2014 May; 2(1):e11. PubMed ID: 25600450 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Clinical Evidence diagnosis: Developing a sensitive search strategy to retrieve diagnostic studies on deep vein thrombosis: a pragmatic approach. Vincent S; Greenley S; Beaven O Health Info Libr J; 2003 Sep; 20(3):150-9. PubMed ID: 12919278 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Identifying diagnostic accuracy studies in EMBASE. Bachmann LM; Estermann P; Kronenberg C; ter Riet G J Med Libr Assoc; 2003 Jul; 91(3):341-6. PubMed ID: 12883560 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Risk of bias assessment of test comparisons was uncommon in comparative accuracy systematic reviews: an overview of reviews. Yang B; Vali Y; Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A; Harris IM; Beese S; Davenport C; Hyde C; Takwoingi Y; Whiting P; Langendam MW; Leeflang MMG J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():167-174. PubMed ID: 32798714 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Study designs for comparative diagnostic test accuracy: A methodological review and classification scheme. Yang B; Olsen M; Vali Y; Langendam MW; Takwoingi Y; Hyde CJ; Bossuyt PMM; Leeflang MMG J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Oct; 138():128-138. PubMed ID: 33915262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Discriminating between empirical studies and nonempirical works using automated text classification. Langlois A; Nie JY; Thomas J; Hong QN; Pluye P Res Synth Methods; 2018 Dec; 9(4):587-601. PubMed ID: 30103261 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Locating qualitative studies in dementia on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO: A comparison of search strategies. Rogers M; Bethel A; Abbott R Res Synth Methods; 2018 Dec; 9(4):579-586. PubMed ID: 29080334 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Development and validation of a search filter to identify equity-focused studies: reducing the number needed to screen. Prady SL; Uphoff EP; Power M; Golder S BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Oct; 18(1):106. PubMed ID: 30314471 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. High-performance information search filters for CKD content in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Iansavichus AV; Hildebrand AM; Haynes RB; Wilczynski NL; Levin A; Hemmelgarn BR; Tu K; Nesrallah GE; Nash DM; Garg AX Am J Kidney Dis; 2015 Jan; 65(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 25059221 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Comparison of simple pooling and bivariate model used in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy published in Chinese journals]. Huang YS; Yang ZR; Zhan SY Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2015 Jun; 47(3):483-8. PubMed ID: 26080880 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance. Haase A; Follmann M; Skipka G; Kirchner H BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Jun; 7():28. PubMed ID: 17603909 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A description of the primary studies of diagnostic test accuracy indexed on the DiTA database. Kaizik MA; Hancock MJ; Herbert RD Physiother Res Int; 2020 Oct; 25(4):e1871. PubMed ID: 32914556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. STARD 2015 was reproducible in a large set of studies on glaucoma. Virgili G; Michelessi M; Miele A; Oddone F; Crescioli G; Fameli V; Lucenteforte E PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0186209. PubMed ID: 29023557 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Do published search filters to identify diagnostic test accuracy studies perform adequately? Ritchie G; Glanville J; Lefebvre C Health Info Libr J; 2007 Sep; 24(3):188-92. PubMed ID: 17714173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evidence for differences in patterns of temporal trends in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Murphy J; Fanshawe TR J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Oct; 174():111472. PubMed ID: 39047917 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews. El Sherif R; Pluye P; Gore G; Granikov V; Hong QN J Med Libr Assoc; 2016 Jan; 104(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 26807052 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]