Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Mar 14:11:27.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-27.

Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review

Brian H Willis  1 , Muireann Quigley
Affiliations

Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review

Brian H Willis et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: The last decade has seen a number of methodological developments in meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies. However, it is unclear whether such developments have permeated the wider research community and on which applications they are being deployed. The objective was to assess the uptake and deployment of the main methodological developments in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests, and identify the tests and target disorders most commonly evaluated by meta-analysis.

Methods: Design--systematic review. Data Sources--Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsychInfo, Global health, HMIC, and AMED were searched for studies published before 31st December 2008. Selection criteria--studies were included if they satisfied all of the following: evaluated a diagnostic test; measured test performance; searched two or more databases; stated search terms and inclusion criteria; used a statistical method to summarise performance. Data extraction--included the following data items: year; test; reference standard; target disorder; setting; statistical and quality methods.

Results: 236 studies were included. Over the last 5 years the number of meta-analyses published has increased, but the uptake of new statistical methods lags behind. Pooling the sensitivity and specificity and using the SROC remain the preferred methods for analysis in 70% of studies, with the bivariate random effects and HSROC model being used in only 22% and 5% of studies respectively. In contrast, between 2006 and 2008 the QUADAS tool was used in 40% of studies. Broadly, radiological imaging was the most frequent category of tests analysed (36%), with cancer (22%) and infection (21%) being the most common categories of target disorder. Nearly 80% of tests analysed were those normally used in specialist settings.

Conclusion: Although quality assessment in meta-analyses has improved with the introduction of QUADAS, uptake of the newer statistical methods is still lagging behind. Furthermore, the focus of secondary research seems to be in evaluating specialist tests in specialist settings, in contrast to the more routine tests and settings encountered in the majority of clinical practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The distribution of included studies per statistical method per year. Also shown is the year of publication of the seminal papers corresponding to the statistical methods (arrows).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Uptake of the new statistical methods (bivariate and HSROC) compared with the uptake of the quality assessment tool QUADAS.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of broad categories of tests analysed.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of tests analysed per target disorder category.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Distribution of tests analysed per patient setting. Secondary care specialties shown in red.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Knottnerus JA, van Weel C, Muris JWM. In: The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis. Knottnerus JA, editor. London: BMJ Books; 2002. General introduction: Evaluation of diagnostic procedures; pp. 1–17.
    1. Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, Lau J. Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Technologies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1048–1055. - PubMed
    1. Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PMM. Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:889–897. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Knottnerus JA, Muris JWM. In: The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis. Knottnerus JA, editor. London: BMJ Books; 2002. Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study; pp. 39–59.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms