Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Naaktgeboren, Christiana A ^a   Ochodo, Eleanor A ^b,c   Van Enst, Wynanda A ^b   De Groot, Joris A H ^a   Hooft, Lotty ^b   Leeflang, Mariska M G ^b   Bossuyt, Patrick M ^b   Moons, Karel G M ^a   Reitsma, Johannes B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Bias (epidemiology); Data interpretation; Diagnostic techniques and procedures standards; Meta analysis; Sensitivity and specificity; Statistical

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84954542361     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0108-4     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Kitsios GD, Teruhiko T, Raman G, Tatsioni A, et al. Comprehensive Overview of Methods and Reporting of Meta-Analyses of Test Accuracy. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012.
2. Willis BH, Quigley M. Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:27.
3. Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0 (Chapter 10). 2010.
4. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
5. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
6. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-58.
7. Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Vist GE, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106-10.
8. 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. Stat Med. 1993;12(14):1293-316.
9. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(10):982-90.
10. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20(19):2865-84.
11. Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JA, Egger M, Deeks JJ, Shang A, et al. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(11):1095-103.
12. Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JA. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2007;8(2):239-51.
13. Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(12):1-113. iii.
14. Sandroni C, Cavallaro F, Marano C, Falcone C, De Santis P, Antonelli M. Accuracy of plethysmographic indices as predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(9):1429-37.
15. Jackson D, White IR, Riley RD. Quantifying the impact of between-study heterogeneity in multivariate meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2012;31(29):3805-20.
16. Zhou Y, Dendukuri N. Statistics for quantifying heterogeneity in univariate and bivariate meta-analyses of binary data: the case of meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Stat Med. 2014;33(16):2701-17.
17. Lilford RJ, Richardson A, Stevens A, Fitzpatrick R, Edwards S, Rock F, et al. Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(8):1-57.
18. Takwoingi Y, Guo B, Riley RD, Deeks JJ. Performance of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy with few studies or sparse data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
19. Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ. 2011;342:d549.
20. Naaktgeboren CA, van Enst WA, Ochodo EA, de Groot JA, Hooft L, Leeflang MM, et al. Systematic overview finds variation in approaches to investigating and reporting on sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(11):1200-9.
21. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101-29.
22. Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 1991;10(11):1665-77.
23. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):841-56.
24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-60.