Evaluation on the effect index of diagnostic test

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Volumn 13, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 890-895

  Zhang, Jun ^a   Xu, Zhi Wei ^a   Li, Ke ^a  

^a SHANTOU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL COLLEGE   (China)

Author keywords

Diagnostic test; Measurement indicator; Meta analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA PROCESSING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; LUNG SMALL CELL CANCER; PUBLISHING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

EID: 84930856293     PISSN: 16722531     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7507/1672-2531.20130156     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. Te development of QUA- DAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2003, 3: 25.
2. Chinese Source
3. Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2002, 2: 9.
4. Littenberg B, Moses LE, Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports. Medical Decision Making, 1993, 13: 313-321.
5. Midgette AS, Stukel TA, Littenberg B. A meta-analytic method for summarizing diagnostic test performances. Medical Decision Making, 1993, 13: 253-257.
6. Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1994, 120: 667-676.
7. Hasselblad V, Hedges LV. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1995, 117: 167.
8. Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 1998, 122: 675.
9. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ, 2001, 323: 157-162.
10. Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2005, 142: 1048-1055.
11. Leefang MMG, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, et al. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2008, 149: 889-897.
12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaf J, et al. Te PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 2009, 6: e1000100.
13. Tompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 1999, 18: 2693-2708.
14. Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 2001, 20: 3625-3633.
15. Higgins J, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1539-1558.
16. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PMM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1525-1537.
17. Cox DR, Snell EJ. Analysis of binary data. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1989.
18. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. Wiley-interscience, 2002.
19. Walter S. Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1237-1256.
20. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, et al. Te diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2003, 56: 1129-1135.
21. Mitchell MD. Validation of the summary ROC for diagnostic test meta-analysis: a Monte Carlo simulation. Academic radiology, 2003, 10: 25-31.
22. Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley-Interscience, 2007.
23. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: Data analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Statistics in Medicine, 2007, 12: 1293-1316.
24. Agresti A. Analysis of ordinal categorical data. Wiley, 2010.
25. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 1999, 282: 1061-1066.
26. Greenland S. Small-sample bias and corrections for conditional maximum-likelihood odds-ratio estimators. Biostatistics, 2000, 1: 113-122.
27. Sterne JAC, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000, 53: 1119-1129.
28. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Smith GD. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ, 2001, 323: 101-105.
29. Suzuki S, Moro-oka T, Choudhry NK. Te conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004, 57: 461-469.
30. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. Te performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size efects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005, 58: 882-893.
31. Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Nisio Di M, et al. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006, 174: 469-476.
32. Chinese Source
33. Chinese Source
34. Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
35. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005, 58: 982-990.
36. Gallagher EJ. Clinical utility of likelihood ratios. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1998, 31: 391-397.
37. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, C. Minder, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1997, 315: 629-634.