Literature DB >> 16861527

Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer.

Constantine Gatsonis1, Prashni Paliwal.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Interest in evidence-based diagnosis is growing rapidly as diagnostic and screening techniques proliferate. In this article we provide an overview of systematic reviews of diagnostic performance and discuss in detail statistical methods for the most common variant of the problem: meta-analysis of studies in which a pair of estimates of sensitivity and specificity is reported. The need to account for possible variations in threshold for test positivity across studies led to the formulation of the Summary ROC (SROC) curve method. We discuss graphical and model-based ways to estimate, summarize, and compare SROC curves, and we present an example from a meta-analysis of data on techniques for staging cervical cancer. We also present a brief survey of the methodologic literature for addressing heterogeneity, correlated data, multiple thresholds per study, and systematic reviews of ROC studies. We conclude with a discussion of the significant methodologic challenges that continue to face investigators in this area of diagnostic medicine research.
CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of diagnostic performance are a rigorous approach to examining and synthesizing evidence in the evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests. The information from such reviews is needed by clinicians, health policy makers, researchers in diagnostic medicine, developers of diagnostic techniques, and the general public. However, despite progress in study quality and reporting and in methodologic development, major challenges confront investigators undertaking these reviews.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16861527     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.0226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  41 in total

Review 1.  Does bleach processing increase the accuracy of sputum smear microscopy for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis?

Authors:  A Cattamanchi; J L Davis; M Pai; L Huang; P C Hopewell; K R Steingart
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-04-26       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of tuberculosis.

Authors:  L L Flores; K R Steingart; N Dendukuri; I Schiller; J Minion; M Pai; A Ramsay; M Henry; S Laal
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2011-08-10

Review 3.  Diagnostic accuracy of fecal lactoferrin for inflammatory bowel disease: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Fengyan Pei; Xingjuan Wang; Zhiyu Sun; Chengjin Hu; Hengli Dou
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2015-10-01

Review 4.  Performance of purified antigens for serodiagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Karen R Steingart; Nandini Dendukuri; Megan Henry; Ian Schiller; Payam Nahid; Philip C Hopewell; Andrew Ramsay; Madhukar Pai; Suman Laal
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2008-12-03

Review 5.  Magnetic resonance cholangiography in assessing biliary anatomy in living donors: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yu-Biao Xu; Yu-Long Bai; Zhi-Gang Min; Shan-Yu Qin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Rapid rate of peripheral blood blast clearance accurately predicts complete remission in acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  V Vainstein; S A Buckley; O Shukron; E H Estey; J L Abkowitz; B L Wood; R B Walter
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 11.528

Review 7.  Accuracy of neutrophil CD64 expression in diagnosing infection in patients with autoimmune diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bang-Qin Hu; Yi Yang; Chun-Jing Zhao; De-Feng Liu; Fu Kuang; Li-Jun Zhang; Xian Yu
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 2.980

8.  Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

Authors:  Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Electroencephalographic Biomarkers for Treatment Response Prediction in Major Depressive Illness: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Alik S Widge; M Taha Bilge; Rebecca Montana; Weilynn Chang; Carolyn I Rodriguez; Thilo Deckersbach; Linda L Carpenter; Ned H Kalin; Charles B Nemeroff
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 18.112

Review 10.  Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Petra Jellema; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; David J Bruinvels; Christian D Mallen; Stijn J B van Weyenberg; Chris J Mulder; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.