Diagnostic test accuracy: Methods for systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 154-162

  Campbell, Jared M ^a   Klugar, Miloslav ^b   Ding, Sandrine ^c   Carmody, Dennis P ^d   Hakonsen, Sasja J ^e   Jadotte, Yuri T ^f,g   White, Sarahlouise ^h   Munn, Zachary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^b PALACKÝ UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^c Bureau d'Echanges des Savoirs Pour des praTiques Exemplaires de Soins (BEST)   (Switzerland)

^d ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^f New Jersey   (United States)

^g RUTGERS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^h FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Diagnosis; Diagnostic test accuracy; Meta analysis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; PATIENT SAFETY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VELOCITY; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84966359143     PISSN: 17441595     EISSN: 17441609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000061     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. White S, Schultz T, Enuameh YAK (Eds): Synthesizing evidence of diagnostic accuracy. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Williams, 2011
2. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001; 323: 157-62
3. Institute TJB. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual: 2014 ed. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014
4. Leeflang MM. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20: 105-13
5. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Takwoingi Y, Macaskill P. Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Syst Rev 2013; 2: 82
6. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. The architecture of diagnostic research. BMJ 2002; 324: 539-41
7. Habbema J, Eijkemans R, Krijnen P, Knottnerus J. Analysis of data on the accuracy of diagnostic tests. In: Knottnerus J, Buntinx F, editors. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis: theory and methods of diagnostic research. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2009. 118-145
8. Zou KH, O'Malley AJ, Mauri L. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation 2007; 115: 654-7
9. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Sem Nuclear Med 1978; 8: 283-98
10. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, et al. Chapter 10: Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. London: the Cochrane Collaboration, 2010
11. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143: 29-36
12. Lalkhen AG, McCluskey A. Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 2008; 8: 221-3
13. Beynon R, Leeflang MM, McDonald S, et al. Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 9: MR000022
14. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Int Med 2011; 155: 529e36
15. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529-36
16. Gatsonis C. Do we need a checklist for reporting the results of diagnostic test evaluations? The STARD proposal. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: 599-600
17. Eusebi P, Reitsma JB, Vermunt JK. Latent class bivariate model for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 88
18. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2010; 1: 97-111
19. Littenberg B, Moses LE, Rabinowitz D. Estimating diagnostic-accuracy from multiple conflicting reports-a new meta-analytic method. Clin Res 1990; 38: A415-20
20. 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: 1293-316
21. Holling H, Bohning W, Bohning D. Meta-analysis of diagnostic studies based upon SROC-curves: a mixed model approach using the Lehmann family. Stat Model 2012; 12: 347-75
22. Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JAC, et al. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 1095-103
23. Retisma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ. Chapter 9: Assessing methodological quality. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0. York: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009
24. Chu H, Cole SR. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1331-2
25. 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 Tech Assess 2005; 9: 1-113
26. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700
27. Gopalakrishna G, Mustafa RA, Davenport C, et al. Applying Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to diagnostic tests was challenging but doable. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 760-8