Gynaecologists blaze the trail in primary studies and systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 71-76

  Johnson, Neil Philip ^a   Khan, Khalid S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cochrane; Diagnostic test accuracy; Evidence based; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SCREENING; EDITORIAL; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; PILOT STUDY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RISK; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ODDS RATIO; PILOT PROJECTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 66549111151     PISSN: 00048666     EISSN: 1479828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.00996.x     Document Type: Review

References (9)

1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25.
2. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. Br Med J 2003; 326: 41-44.
3. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 276: 637-639.
4. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-1900.
5. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 982-990.
6. Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM. We should not pool diagnostic likelihood ratios in systematic reviews. Stat Med 2008; 27: 687-697.
7. Johnson NP, Bagrie EM, Coomarasamy A et al. Ovarian reserve tests for predicting fertility outcomes for assisted reproductive technology: The International Systematic Collaboration of Ovarian Reserve Evaluation protocol for a systematic review of ovarian reserve test accuracy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 113: 1472-1480.
8. Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Searching for evidence to inform clinical practice. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 14: 142-146.
9. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G (eds). Systematic Reviews to Support Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Review and Apply Findings of Healthcare Research. London: The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd, 2003; 119.