Overview of the Process of Conducting Meta-analyses of the Diagnostic Test Accuracy

Abstract

Diagnosis is a critical step for clinical treatment. Many individual studies have been conducted to determine the accuracy of various diagnostic tests, but they had small sample sizes and correspondingly inadequate statistical strength. Combining the results from several such studies can help increase the statistical strength and precision of their results. Meta-analysis is a useful tool for evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests and can be used to obtain precise estimates when multiple small studies for a given test and subject pool are available. The need for meta-analysis on studies examining diagnostic test accuracy has increased noticeably, and more meta-analyses on diagnostic test accuracy studies are being published. A meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies differs from a typical meta-analysis because diagnostic test accuracy studies report a pair of statistics, such as sensitivity and specificity, rather than a single statistic. Therefore, meta-analyses of the diagnostic test accuracy need to deal with two summary statistics simultaneously. More complex statistical methods are required for conducting meta-analyses using diagnostic test accuracy studies compared to that required for conventional meta-analysis. This is because the sensitivity and specificity are generally inversely correlated due to a threshold effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity in the results of test accuracy studies. This review provides an overview of the process of meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy. (J Rheum Dis 2018;25:3-10)

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of the 4AT for Delirium Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…As further summary measures, we calculated positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio using the pooled sensitivity and specificity. The results described in the HSROC curve included 95% prediction and 95% confidence regions [ 18 , 19 ].…”

The Delirium Observation Screening Scale: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

“…Hierarchical regression based on a random-effects model was used to synthesize the TP, FP, TN, and FN values (Kim et al, 2015; Lee, 2018). This bivariate approach considers the potential between-study heterogeneity by accommodating the correlation between sensitivity and specificity in each study (Kim et al, 2015; Lee, 2018; Lee et al, 2015). Furthermore, unlike the traditional method of using straight lines to indicate pooled estimates, this approach generates an ellipse for pooled mean sensitivity and specificity, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).…”

Diagnostic test accuracy of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…As summary measures, a diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated using the pooled sensitivity and specificity. The results of the meta‐analyses were presented in HSROC curve, which included 95% confidence and 95% prediction regions (Lee, Kim, Choi, Huh, & Park, 2015; Lee, 2018). We also performed subgroup analysis according to the cut‐off value because four of the included studies reported the DTA of the Nu‐DESC by using various cut‐off scores (Hargrave et al., 2017; Leung et al., 2008; Neufeld et al., 2013; Saller et al., 2019).…”