The review stated a clear objective and defined appropriate inclusion criteria. Several sources were searched for relevant studies, but (as acknowledged by the authors) the restriction to studies in English raised the possibility of language bias. Although a test for publication bias was reported, these tests were known to be unreliable for reviews of test accuracy studies. Therefore, the possibility of publication bias cannot be excluded. Reporting of the review methods was limited and it was not clear whether any measures were taken to minimise error and/or bias in the review process.
Methodological quality of included studies was assessed with an appropriate tool. However, results were only reported as summary quality scores, which minimised the informative value of the assessment. The results of individual included studies were reported and the meta-analytic methods used were appropriate.
The authors' conclusions reflect the data presented, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the limitations described and the small number and size of the included studies.