You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Quality assessment of diagnostic before-after studies: development of methodology in the context of a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-9-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catherine A Meads, Clare F Davenport |
| Abstract |
Quality assessment tools for primary studies of test accuracy are relatively well developed, although only one is validated (QUADAS), but very little work has been done to develop tools to quality-assess studies evaluating the impact of diagnostic testing on management of patients (diagnostic or therapeutic yield). The recent draft NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal (2007) suggests QUADAS "as a useful starting point for appraising studies that evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a test" but does not mention how to quality assess diagnostic or therapeutic yield studies, in particular diagnostic before-after studies. In the context of undertaking a rapid systematic review of structural neuroimaging in psychosis for NICE, we describe the modifications that we made to QUADAS, our experience of this in practice and in relation to published theory on diagnostic or therapeutic yield studies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 25% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 46% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |