Ton J Cleophas1, Aeilko H Zwinderman. 1. European Interuniversity College of Pharmaceutical Medicine, Lyon, France. ajm.cleophas@wxs.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic reviews often include the sensitivity/specificity results of individual studies. A problem occurs when these data are pooled because the correlation between sensitivity and specificity is generally strongly negative, causing overestimation of the pooled results. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), defined as the odds of true positives vs. that of false positives, may avoid this problem. The aim of the study was to review the advantages and limitations of the DORs. METHODS: A systematic review of 44 previously published diagnostic studies was used as an example. RESULTS: DORs can be readily implemented in diagnostic research. Advantages include: (1) they adjust for the negative and curvilinear correlations between sensitivities and specificities, (2) they take account of the heterogeneity between studies with respect to the different thresholds chosen by the investigators in the original studies, and (3) it is easy to extend the model with covariates representing between-study differences in design. Limitations include: 1) the outcome parameter is a summary estimate of both sensitivity and specificity, and 2) the magnitude of the studies included is not taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: Reported sensitivities and specificities of different studies assessing similar diagnostic tests are not only negatively correlated, but also negatively correlated in a curvilinear manner. It is appropriate to take this negative curvilinear correlation into account in the data pooling of such meta-analyses. The DORs can be applied for that purpose.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic reviews often include the sensitivity/specificity results of individual studies. A problem occurs when these data are pooled because the correlation between sensitivity and specificity is generally strongly negative, causing overestimation of the pooled results. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), defined as the odds of true positives vs. that of false positives, may avoid this problem. The aim of the study was to review the advantages and limitations of the DORs. METHODS: A systematic review of 44 previously published diagnostic studies was used as an example. RESULTS: DORs can be readily implemented in diagnostic research. Advantages include: (1) they adjust for the negative and curvilinear correlations between sensitivities and specificities, (2) they take account of the heterogeneity between studies with respect to the different thresholds chosen by the investigators in the original studies, and (3) it is easy to extend the model with covariates representing between-study differences in design. Limitations include: 1) the outcome parameter is a summary estimate of both sensitivity and specificity, and 2) the magnitude of the studies included is not taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: Reported sensitivities and specificities of different studies assessing similar diagnostic tests are not only negatively correlated, but also negatively correlated in a curvilinear manner. It is appropriate to take this negative curvilinear correlation into account in the data pooling of such meta-analyses. The DORs can be applied for that purpose.