IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v13y1993i3p253-257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Meta-analytic Method for Summarizing Diagnostic Test Performances

Author

Listed:
  • Andre S. Midgette
  • Therese A. Stukel
  • Benjamin Littenberg

Abstract

The authors have devised a meta-analytic method to summarize diagnostic test perfor mances, which they describe along with a clinical example wherein they analyze the perfor mances of real-time ultrasonography in eight studies of the detection of proximal deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity, selected on the basis of specific inclusion criteria. To evaluate the evidence for fitting a summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, a test of correlation between the estimates of true-positive rate (TPR) and false-positive rate (FPR) is performed. A high positive correlation argues for summarizing the studies with an ROC curve. In the absence of such correlation, a test of homogeneity is applied separately to the estimates of sensitivity (TPR) and specificity (TNR) to evaluate whether differences among studies are due to chance alone. If the estimates are homogeneous, a summary point estimate and confidence intervals (Cls) are calculated. As a final step, subgroup anal yses can be performed to assess alternative explanations of variability in TPR and FPR. Within groups defined by the presence or absence of symptoms of venous thrombosis, a negative correlation between TPR and FPR and homogeneity among studies were found. For symptomatic patients, the summary TPR was 0.97 with a 95% CI of (0.94, 0.99) and the summary TNR was 0.97 (0.95, 0.99). For asymptomatic patients, the summary TPR was 0.66 (0.50, 0.81), and the summary TNR was 0.96 (0.90, 0.99). The difference in TPR between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients was statistically significant. There was no evidence that test referral bias or lack of independent interpretation of test results influenced these findings. It is concluded that this meta-analytic method represents a quantitative ap proach to summarizing the performances of diagnostic tests. It provides criteria for deciding among the approaches of fitting a summary ROC curve, calculating a summary point esti mate, or reporting ranges of TPRs and TNRs. A summary point estimate is introduced for use when TPR and FPR are not positively correlated but index test characteristics are homogeneous among studies. This method also allows examination of alternative expla nations of differences in test performance characteristics such as differences among sub groups of patients or biases in study design. Key words: meta-analysis; technology as sessment; diagnostic test accuracy. (Med Decis Making 1993;13:253-257)

Suggested Citation

  • Andre S. Midgette & Therese A. Stukel & Benjamin Littenberg, 1993. "A Meta-analytic Method for Summarizing Diagnostic Test Performances," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(3), pages 253-257, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:13:y:1993:i:3:p:253-257
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9301300313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9301300313
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9301300313?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heinz Holling & Walailuck Böhning & Dankmar Böhning, 2012. "Likelihood-Based Clustering of Meta-Analytic SROC Curves," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 106-126, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:13:y:1993:i:3:p:253-257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.