PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 7853038

Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy.

Abstract

Meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy are uncommon and often based on separate pooling of sensitivity and specificity, which can lead to biased estimates. Recently, several appropriate methods have been developed for meta-analysing diagnostic test data from primary studies. Primary studies usually only provide binary test data, for which Moses et al. have developed a method to estimate Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves, thereby taking account of possible test threshold differences between studies. Several methods are also available for analysing multicategory and continuous test data. The usefulness of applying these methods is constrained by publication bias and the generally poor quality of primary studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Meta-analysts need to highlight important defects in quality and how they affect summary estimates to ensure that better primary studies are available for meta-analysis in the future.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Irwig, P Macaskill, P Glasziou, M Fahey. 1995. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00099-c

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias

Factors influencing the optimal control-to-case ratio in matched case-control studies.

Statistical power in matched case-control studies depends on both the correlation coefficient between cases and their matched controls (phi) and the prevalence of exposure among controls (P0). To examine the hypothesis that the value of increasing the control-to-case ratio beyond 5 varies with both phi and P0, the authors estimated statistical power for a hypothetical case-control study under different assumptions. The effect of increasing the control-to-case ratio depended on phi and, to a lesser extent, on P0. The results suggest that investigators consider including more than five controls per case when either phi is greater than about 0.2 or P, is less than about 0.15.

Bias