Literature DB >> 24274632

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy.

M M G Leeflang1.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy summarize the accuracy, e.g. the sensitivity and specificity, of diagnostic tests in a systematic and transparent way. The aim of such a review is to investigate whether a test is sufficiently specific or sensitive to fit its role in practice, to compare the accuracy of two or more diagnostic tests, or to investigate where existing variation in results comes from. The search strategy should be broad and preferably fully reported, to enable readers to assess the completeness of it. Included studies usually have a cross-sectional design in which the tests of interest, ideally both the index test and its comparator, are evaluated against the reference standard. They should be a reflection of the situation that the review question refers to. The quality of included studies is assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist, containing items such as a consecutive and all-inclusive patient selection process, blinding of index test and reference standard assessment, a valid reference standard, and complete verification of all included participants. Studies recruiting cases separately from (healthy) controls are regarded as bearing a high risk of bias. For meta-analysis, the bivariate model or the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model is used. These models take into account potential threshold effects and the correlation between sensitivity and specificity. They also allow addition of covariates for investigatation of potential sources of heterogeneity. Finally, the results from the meta-analyses should be explained and interpreted for the reader, to be well understood.
© 2013 The Author Clinical Microbiology and Infection © 2013 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnosis; diagnostic test accuracy; evidence-based medicine; meta-analyses; sensitivity and specificity; systematic reviews

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24274632     DOI: 10.1111/1469-0691.12474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect        ISSN: 1198-743X            Impact factor:   8.067


  76 in total

Review 1.  Screening Accuracy for Aspiration Using Bedside Water Swallow Tests: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Martin B Brodsky; Debra M Suiter; Marlís González-Fernández; Henry J Michtalik; Tobi B Frymark; Rebecca Venediktov; Tracy Schooling
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Meta-analysis for diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Anastasia M Hartzes; Charity J Morgan
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  White light, autofluorescence and narrow-band imaging bronchoscopy for diagnosing airway pre-cancerous and early cancer lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jianrong Zhang; Jieyu Wu; Yujing Yang; Hua Liao; Zhiheng Xu; Lindsey Tristine Hamblin; Long Jiang; Lieven Depypere; Keng Leong Ang; Jiaxi He; Ziyan Liang; Jun Huang; Jingpei Li; Qihua He; Wenhua Liang; Jianxing He
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 4.  Prognostic models for prolonged disorders of consciousness: an integrative review.

Authors:  Ming Song; Yi Yang; Zhengyi Yang; Yue Cui; Shan Yu; Jianghong He; Tianzi Jiang
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 9.261

5.  Accuracy of a Rapid Diagnostic Test (Cypress Chagas Quick Test®) for the Diagnosis of Chronic Chagas Disease in a Nonendemic Area: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  Andrea Angheben; Silvia Staffolani; Mariella Anselmi; Stefano Tais; Monica Degani; Federico Gobbi; Dora Buonfrate; Maria Gobbo; Zeno Bisoffi
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 2.345

Review 6.  Accuracy of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis diagnosis using polymerase chain reaction: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ciro Martins Gomes; Suleimy Cristina Mazin; Elisa Raphael dos Santos; Mariana Vicente Cesetti; Guilherme Albergaria Brízida Bächtold; João Henrique de Freitas Cordeiro; Fabrício Claudino Estrela Terra Theodoro; Fabiana dos Santos Damasco; Sebastián Andrés Vernal Carranza; Adriana de Oliveira Santos; Ana Maria Roselino; Raimunda Nonata Ribeiro Sampaio
Journal:  Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.743

Review 7.  Ultrasonography for endoleak detection after endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Authors:  Iosief Abraha; Maria Laura Luchetta; Rita De Florio; Francesco Cozzolino; Giovanni Casazza; Piergiorgio Duca; Basso Parente; Massimiliano Orso; Antonella Germani; Paolo Eusebi; Alessandro Montedori
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-06-09

Review 8.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Detection Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Caroline Chartrand; Nicolas Tremblay; Christian Renaud; Jesse Papenburg
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Postmortem imaging findings and cause of death determination compared with autopsy: a systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Garyfalia Ampanozi; Delaja Halbheer; Lars C Ebert; Michael J Thali; Ulrike Held
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 2.686

Review 10.  Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cameron B Haas; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Janie M Lee; Sara H Javid; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Timothy Gleason; Cary Kaufman; Jennifer Specht; Sean Stitham; Karen J Wernli
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-04-17       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.