Christiana A Naaktgeboren1, Wynanda A van Enst2, Eleanor A Ochodo3, Joris A H de Groot4, Lotty Hooft2, Mariska M Leeflang2, Patrick M Bossuyt5, Karel G M Moons4, Johannes B Reitsma4. 1. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.naaktgeboren@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Dutch Cochrane Centre, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (KEBB), Academic Medical Centre (AMC), University of Amsterdam (UvA), Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (KEBB), Academic Medical Centre (AMC), University of Amsterdam (UvA), Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Interdisciplinary Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, PO Box 19063, Francie van Zijl Drive, TYGERBERG 7505, South Africa. 4. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (KEBB), Academic Medical Centre (AMC), University of Amsterdam (UvA), Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine how authors explore and report on sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was systematically identified. Data were extracted on whether an exploration of the sources of heterogeneity was undertaken, how this was done, the number and type of potential sources explored, and how results and conclusions were reported. RESULTS: Of the 65 systematic reviews, 12 did not perform a meta-analysis and eight of these gave heterogeneity between studies as a reason. Of the 53 reviews containing a meta-analysis, 40 explored potential sources of heterogeneity in a formal manner and 27 identified at least one source of heterogeneity. The reviews not investigating heterogeneity were smaller than those that did (median [interquartile range {IQR}], 8 [5-15] vs. 14 [11-19] primary studies). Twelve reviews performed a sensitivity analysis, 25 stratified analyses, and 19 metaregression. Many sources of heterogeneity were explored compared with the number of primary studies in a meta-analysis (median ratio, 1:5). Review authors placed importance on the exploration of sources of heterogeneity; 37 mentioned the exploration or the findings thereof in the abstract or conclusion of the main text.results CONCLUSION: Methods for investigating sources of heterogeneity varied widely between reviews. Based on our findings of the review, we made suggestions on what to consider and report on when exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies.
OBJECTIVES: To examine how authors explore and report on sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was systematically identified. Data were extracted on whether an exploration of the sources of heterogeneity was undertaken, how this was done, the number and type of potential sources explored, and how results and conclusions were reported. RESULTS: Of the 65 systematic reviews, 12 did not perform a meta-analysis and eight of these gave heterogeneity between studies as a reason. Of the 53 reviews containing a meta-analysis, 40 explored potential sources of heterogeneity in a formal manner and 27 identified at least one source of heterogeneity. The reviews not investigating heterogeneity were smaller than those that did (median [interquartile range {IQR}], 8 [5-15] vs. 14 [11-19] primary studies). Twelve reviews performed a sensitivity analysis, 25 stratified analyses, and 19 metaregression. Many sources of heterogeneity were explored compared with the number of primary studies in a meta-analysis (median ratio, 1:5). Review authors placed importance on the exploration of sources of heterogeneity; 37 mentioned the exploration or the findings thereof in the abstract or conclusion of the main text.results CONCLUSION: Methods for investigating sources of heterogeneity varied widely between reviews. Based on our findings of the review, we made suggestions on what to consider and report on when exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies.
Keywords:
Bias (epidemiology); Data interpretation; Diagnostic techniques and procedures/standards; Meta-analysis; Sensitivity and specificity; Statistical
Authors: Torjan Haslerud; Katrin Brauckhoff; Lars Reisæter; Regina Küfner Lein; Achim Heinecke; Jan Erik Varhaug; Martin Biermann Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Daniël A Korevaar; Jean-Paul Salameh; Yasaman Vali; Jérémie F Cohen; Matthew D F McInnes; René Spijker; Patrick M Bossuyt Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 5.273
Authors: Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Eleanor A Ochodo; Wynanda A Van Enst; Joris A H de Groot; Lotty Hooft; Mariska M G Leeflang; Patrick M Bossuyt; Karel G M Moons; Johannes B Reitsma Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Trevor A McGrath; Mostafa Alabousi; Becky Skidmore; Daniël A Korevaar; Patrick M M Bossuyt; David Moher; Brett Thombs; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2017-10-10