Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: Methodologic primer

被引:161
作者
Gatsonis, Constantine [1 ]
Paliwal, Prashni [1 ]
机构
[1] Brown Univ, Ctr Stat Sci, Providence, RI 02912 USA
关键词
diagnostic accuracy; evidence; meta-analysis; statistical methods; Summary ROC curve; systematic reviews;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.06.0226
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. Interest in evidence-based diagnosis is growing rapidly as diagnostic and screening techniques proliferate. In this article we provide an overview of systematic reviews of diagnostic performance and discuss in detail statistical methods for the most common variant of the problem: meta-analysis of studies in which a pair of estimates of sensitivity and specificity is reported. The need to account for possible variations in threshold for test positivity across studies led to the formulation of the Summary ROC (SROC) curve method. We discuss graphical and model-based ways to estimate, summarize, and compare SROC curves, and we present an example from a meta-analysis of data on techniques for staging cervical cancer. We also present a brief survey of the methodologic literature for addressing heterogeneity, correlated data, multiple thresholds per study, and systematic reviews of ROC studies. We conclude with a discussion of the significant methodologic challenges that continue to face investigators in this area of diagnostic medicine research. CONCLUSION. Systematic reviews of diagnostic performance are a rigorous approach to examining and synthesizing evidence in the evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests. The information from such reviews is needed by clinicians, health policy makers, researchers in diagnostic medicine, developers of diagnostic techniques, and the general public. However, despite progress in study quality and reporting and in methodologic development, major challenges confront investigators undertaking these reviews. © American Roentgen Ray Society.
引用
收藏
页码:271 / 281
页数:11
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: Reducing the number needed to read [J].
Bachmann, LM ;
Coray, R ;
Estermann, P ;
ter Riet, G .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2002, 9 (06) :653-658
[2]   STATUS OF CLINICAL MR EVALUATIONS 1985-1988 - BASE-LINE AND DESIGN FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENTS [J].
BEAM, CA ;
SOSTMAN, HD ;
ZHENG, JY .
RADIOLOGY, 1991, 180 (01) :265-270
[3]   HOW TO EVALUATE THE RADIOLOGY LITERATURE [J].
BLACK, WC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1990, 154 (01) :17-22
[4]   Towards complete and,accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCE .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7379) :41-44
[5]   The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW ;
Lijmer, JG .
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2003, 49 (01) :7-18
[6]   THE POOR QUALITY OF EARLY EVALUATIONS OF MAGNETIC-RESONANCE IMAGING [J].
COOPER, LS ;
CHALMERS, TC ;
MCCALLY, M ;
BERRIER, J ;
SACKS, HS .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1988, 259 (22) :3277-3280
[7]   Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals:: an optimal search strategy [J].
Devillé, WLJM ;
Bezemer, PD ;
Bouter, LM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 53 (01) :65-69
[8]   Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy assessment studies with varying number of thresholds [J].
Dukic, V ;
Gatsonis, C .
BIOMETRICS, 2003, 59 (04) :936-946
[9]  
DUMOUCHEL W, 2000, METAANALYSIS MED HLT
[10]   Design of evaluations of imaging technologies: Development of a paradigm [J].
Gatsonis, C .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2000, 7 (09) :681-683