A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools.
about
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviewsSerological laboratory tests for diagnosis of human leptospirosis in patients presenting with clinical symptomsNo role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studiesHow does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis?Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study.Evaluating radiographers' diagnostic accuracy in screen-reading mammograms: what constitutes a quality study?Chapter 5: assessing risk of bias as a domain of quality in medical test studiesSystematic reviews of diagnostic tests in endocrinology: an audit of methods, reporting, and performance.Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting.Toward an evidence-based toxicology.The principles of weight of evidence validation of test methods and testing strategies. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 58.On-the-Job Evidence-Based Medicine Training for Clinician-Scientists of the Next Generation.Survey of the methods and reporting practices in published meta-analyses of test performance: 1987 to 2009.Quality assessment of comparative diagnostic accuracy studies: our experience using a modified version of the QUADAS-2 tool.A proposed framework for developing quality assessment toolsEvidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.Sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies and the diagnostic process.Methodological quality of diagnostic accuracy studies on non-invasive coronary CT angiography: influence of QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies included in systematic reviews) items on sensitivity and specificity.Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review.Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies.
P2860
Q21144675-D321C77B-3E4A-45D3-B9BF-8E00C871C147Q24235421-92EB0059-5C91-40F3-A205-5A3A48266DCAQ24812092-A81C1AF7-58D8-4D29-A4EF-7AA49634FF61Q24814278-604B9970-3C7D-44A5-9463-2DBB50E2DDD7Q35109418-387CD958-053A-478B-A31D-273085710E61Q35192026-75D37C1E-FF4C-427C-BF27-94CDA6EFF874Q35999035-C7054F30-43D5-486E-A4D4-90AD21E62622Q36393699-BF5DAA14-3C66-4533-895A-BA9F008B1ACDQ36540039-D31A6083-2D27-4349-88B6-ADC9E1C86801Q36611279-21063CCB-DBB5-46F3-9FB1-9C9171132828Q36723769-4ADDCE3A-3AD0-47C0-8AC5-C806E51CD907Q37236087-46F0863D-8A92-4F50-80BB-B41BC953F1A7Q38520443-8F4E932E-88DF-487C-B48F-5430EACDC7D5Q38520450-970B9CA0-4E3F-43DC-A20D-58BC8D2FE193Q42682310-219E7746-50A4-44F5-9288-01C8AD5D6E6DQ42860877-0D4C1F39-FE03-407F-8CA4-91FFE61E6A59Q43212285-5D1F9F2B-A092-4943-82AD-D426597FD71BQ51276539-3657E832-5EB8-4A12-9E32-9A29F662B2F4Q52655531-9A1A6EAB-953B-442F-95B6-3C6BFC4247C5Q53835370-8DAAA656-C394-403F-89C4-001904FB99CC
P2860
A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools.
description
2005 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2005年の論文
@ja
2005年論文
@yue
2005年論文
@zh-hant
2005年論文
@zh-hk
2005年論文
@zh-mo
2005年論文
@zh-tw
2005年论文
@wuu
2005年论文
@zh
2005年论文
@zh-cn
name
A systematic review finds that ...... ality despite available tools.
@ast
A systematic review finds that ...... ality despite available tools.
@en
type
label
A systematic review finds that ...... ality despite available tools.
@ast
A systematic review finds that ...... ality despite available tools.
@en
prefLabel
A systematic review finds that ...... ality despite available tools.
@ast
A systematic review finds that ...... ality despite available tools.
@en
P2093
P50
P1476
A systematic review finds that ...... ality despite available tools.
@en
P2093
Anne W S Rutjes
Jos Kleijnen
Patrick M M Bossuyt
P356
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2004.04.008
P577
2005-01-01T00:00:00Z