Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature

Abstract

BackgroundThere are a variety of ways in which accuracy of clinical tests can be summarised in systematic reviews. Variation in reporting of summary measures has only been assessed in a small survey restricted to meta-analyses of screening studies found in a single database. Therefore, we performed this study to assess the measures of accuracy used for reporting results of primary studies as well as their meta-analysis in systematic reviews of test accuracy studies.MethodsRelevant reviews on test accuracy were selected from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (1994–2000), which electronically searches seven bibliographic databases and manually searches key resources. The structured abstracts of these reviews were screened and information on accuracy measures was extracted from the full texts of 90 relevant reviews, 60 of which used meta-analysis.ResultsSensitivity or specificity was used for reporting the results of primary studies in 65/90 (72%) reviews, predictive values in 26/90 (28%), and likelihood ratios in 20/90 (22%). For meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity or specificity was used in 35/60 (58%) reviews, pooled predictive values in 11/60 (18%), pooled likelihood ratios in 13/60 (22%), and pooled diagnostic odds ratio in 5/60 (8%). Summary ROC was used in 44/60 (73%) of the meta-analyses. There were no significant differences in measures of test accuracy among reviews published earlier (1994–97) and those published later (1998–2000).ConclusionsThere is considerable variation in ways of reporting and summarising results of test accuracy studies in systematic reviews. There is a need for consensus about the best ways of reporting results of test accuracy studies in reviews.

Re: Management of women referred to an acute gynecology unit: impact of an ultrasound‐based model of care

“…In our paper, pooled LRs were generally similar to those that would have been calculated from sensitivity and specificity using the formulae: positive LR = sensitivity/(1 − specificity) and negative LR = (1 − sensitivity)/specificity. Furthermore, and despite the limitations of pooled LRs, we agree with the argument that LRs, which essentially express how many times higher or lower is the risk for a condition after a positive or negative test, are a metric much more intuitive than both sensitivity and specificity in clinical decision-making 3,4 and this is why they are very commonly used in meta-analyses of diagnostic tests 5 .…”

Diagnostic accuracy of faecal occult blood tests used in screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review

“…[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] We search 15 databases for published and unpublished studies, with no language restrictions, up to November 2004. The internet, bibliographies of included studies and systematic reviews, key journals and conference proceedings were also searched.…”

The Percutaneous shunting in Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction (PLUTO) study and randomised controlled trial: evaluation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of percutaneous vesicoamniotic shunting for lower urinary tract obstruction

“…Using the 2 × 2 tables we computed sensitivity (true positive rate), specificity (true negative rate) and the LRs 73 (the ratio of the probability of the specific test result in people who do have the disease to the probability in people who do not) and 95% CIs for individual studies. Subgroup analysis with pooling of LRs was performed only when there were at least two studies with similar characteristics within that group.…”