TY - JOUR
T1 - Chapter 8
T2 - Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard"
AU - Trikalinos, Thomas A.
AU - Balion, Cynthia M.
AU - Coleman, Craig I.
AU - Griffith, Lauren
AU - Santaguida, Pasqualina L.
AU - Vandermeer, Ben
AU - Fu, Rongwei
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgment: This manuscript is based on work funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). All authors are members of AHRQ-funded Evidence-based Practice Centers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of AHRQ or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
PY - 2012/6
Y1 - 2012/6
N2 - Synthesizing information on test performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios is often an important part of a systematic review of a medical test. Because many metrics of test performance are of interest, the meta-analysis of medical tests is more complex than the meta-analysis of interventions or associations. Sometimes, a helpful way to summarize medical test studies is to provide a "summary point", a summary sensitivity and a summary specificity. Other times, when the sensitivity or specificity estimates vary widely or when the test threshold varies, it is more helpful to synthesize data using a "summary line" that describes how the average sensitivity changes with the average specificity. Choosing the most helpful summary is subjective, and in some cases both summaries provide meaningful and complementary information. Because sensitivity and specificity are not independent across studies, the meta-analysis of medical tests is fundamentaly a multivariate problem, and should be addressed with multivariate methods. More complex analyses are needed if studies report results at multiple thresholds for positive tests. At the same time, quantitative analyses are used to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies. This can be performed in the context of proper (multivariate) meta-regressions.
AB - Synthesizing information on test performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios is often an important part of a systematic review of a medical test. Because many metrics of test performance are of interest, the meta-analysis of medical tests is more complex than the meta-analysis of interventions or associations. Sometimes, a helpful way to summarize medical test studies is to provide a "summary point", a summary sensitivity and a summary specificity. Other times, when the sensitivity or specificity estimates vary widely or when the test threshold varies, it is more helpful to synthesize data using a "summary line" that describes how the average sensitivity changes with the average specificity. Choosing the most helpful summary is subjective, and in some cases both summaries provide meaningful and complementary information. Because sensitivity and specificity are not independent across studies, the meta-analysis of medical tests is fundamentaly a multivariate problem, and should be addressed with multivariate methods. More complex analyses are needed if studies report results at multiple thresholds for positive tests. At the same time, quantitative analyses are used to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies. This can be performed in the context of proper (multivariate) meta-regressions.
KW - gold standard
KW - meta-analysis
KW - test performance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862669163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862669163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1
DO - 10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 22648676
AN - SCOPUS:84862669163
SN - 0884-8734
VL - 27
SP - S56-S66
JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine
JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine
IS - SUPPL.1
ER -