Hanyang Med Rev.  2015 Feb;35(1):50-53. 10.7599/hmr.2015.35.1.50.

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

• Lee YH

• KMID: 2149105
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.7599/hmr.2015.35.1.50

Abstract

Diagnosis is a critical step in clinical treatment. Meta-analysis is a useful tool for evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests and can be used to obtain precise accuracy estimates when small studies for a given test and subject pool are available. Meta-analysis uses statistical techniques to combine and compare data from different studies, thus increasing the power of the estimates of diagnostic accuracy in primary research. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests summarizes the accuracy of diagnosis. Therefore, it is necessary for clinicians to understand meta-analytical procedures for diagnostic tests. Herein, we describe the basic steps in a meta-analysis to evaluate test accuracy: 1) describing the results of individual studies, 2) searching for heterogeneity, 3) testing for the threshold effect, 4) deciding on the model for statistical pooling, 5) dealing with heterogeneity, and 6) interpreting meta-analysis results of diagnostic tests. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy provides useful information for clinical practice and for the formulation of questions to be tested in future studies.

Keyword

Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy; Research Design

MeSH Terms

Diagnosis
Diagnostic Tests, Routine*
Dimensional Measurement Accuracy
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Population Characteristics
Research Design

Reference

1. Gotzsche PC. Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. It may be crucially important for patients. BMJ. 2000; 321:585–586.

2. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48:119–130.

3. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997; 315:1533.

4. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 2002; 21:1559–1573.

5. Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104:1086–1092.

6. Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 1.0. 0. The Cochrane Collaboration 2009.

7. Leeflang MM. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2014; 20:105–113.

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; 12:1293–1316.

9. Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, De Vet HC, Van der Windt DA, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002; 2:9.

10. Trikalinos TA, Salanti G, Zintzaras E, Ioannidis JP. Meta-analysis methods. Adv Genet. 2008; 60:311–334.

11. Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 1991; 10:1665–1677.

12. Munafò MR, Flint J. Meta-analysis of genetic association studies. Trends Genet. 2004; 20:439–444.

13. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21:1539–1558.

14. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001; 323:157–162.

15. Davey Smith G, Egger M. Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 1997; 350:1182.

16. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7:177–188.

17. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6:31.

18. Song GG, Lee YH. Diagnostic accuracies of sialography and salivary ultrasonography in Sjogren's syndrome patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014; 32:516–522.