Estimating a test's accuracy using tailored meta-analysis-How setting-specific data may aid study selection
- PMID: 24447592
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.016
Estimating a test's accuracy using tailored meta-analysis-How setting-specific data may aid study selection
Abstract
Objectives: To determine a plausible estimate for a test's performance in a specific setting using a new method for selecting studies.
Study design and setting: It is shown how routine data from practice may be used to define an "applicable region" for studies in receiver operating characteristic space. After qualitative appraisal, studies are selected based on the probability that their study accuracy estimates arose from parameters lying in this applicable region. Three methods for calculating these probabilities are developed and used to tailor the selection of studies for meta-analysis. The Pap test applied to the UK National Health Service (NHS) Cervical Screening Programme provides a case example.
Results: The meta-analysis for the Pap test included 68 studies, but at most 17 studies were considered applicable to the NHS. For conventional meta-analysis, the sensitivity and specificity (with 95% confidence intervals) were estimated to be 72.8% (65.8, 78.8) and 75.4% (68.1, 81.5) compared with 50.9% (35.8, 66.0) and 98.0% (95.4, 99.1) from tailored meta-analysis using a binomial method for selection. Thus, for a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 prevalence of 2.2%, the post-test probability for CIN 1 would increase from 6.2% to 36.6% between the two methods of meta-analysis.
Conclusion: Tailored meta-analysis provides a method for augmenting study selection based on the study's applicability to a setting. As such, the summary estimate is more likely to be plausible for a setting and could improve diagnostic prediction in practice.
Keywords: Data interpretation, statistical; Decision making; Diagnosis tests, routine; Mass screening; Meta-analysis; Models, statistical.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Comparing outcomes from tailored meta-analysis with outcomes from a setting specific test accuracy study using routine data of faecal calprotectin testing for inflammatory bowel disease.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Jul 12;22(1):192. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01668-9. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022. PMID: 35820893 Free PMC article. Review.
-
What is the test's accuracy in my practice population? Tailored meta-analysis provides a plausible estimate.J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;68(8):847-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.10.002. Epub 2014 Dec 3. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015. PMID: 25479685
-
Tailored meta-analysis: an investigation of the correlation between the test positive rate and prevalence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;106:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.09.013. Epub 2018 Sep 29. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019. PMID: 30278213 Free PMC article.
-
Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards.J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Oct;52(10):943-51. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00086-4. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999. PMID: 10513757
-
Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review.Ann Intern Med. 2000 May 16;132(10):810-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-10-200005160-00009. Ann Intern Med. 2000. PMID: 10819705 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparing outcomes from tailored meta-analysis with outcomes from a setting specific test accuracy study using routine data of faecal calprotectin testing for inflammatory bowel disease.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Jul 12;22(1):192. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01668-9. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022. PMID: 35820893 Free PMC article. Review.
-
On estimating a constrained bivariate random effects model for meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.Stat Methods Med Res. 2022 Feb;31(2):287-299. doi: 10.1177/09622802211065157. Epub 2022 Jan 7. Stat Methods Med Res. 2022. PMID: 34994667 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Centor and McIsaac scores in primary care: a meta-analysis over multiple thresholds.Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Mar 26;70(693):e245-e254. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X708833. Print 2020 Apr. Br J Gen Pract. 2020. PMID: 32152041 Free PMC article.
-
Maximum likelihood estimation based on Newton-Raphson iteration for the bivariate random effects model in test accuracy meta-analysis.Stat Methods Med Res. 2020 Apr;29(4):1197-1211. doi: 10.1177/0962280219853602. Epub 2019 Jun 11. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020. PMID: 31184270 Free PMC article.
-
Untapped potential of multicenter studies: a review of cardiovascular risk prediction models revealed inappropriate analyses and wide variation in reporting.Diagn Progn Res. 2019 Feb 22;3:6. doi: 10.1186/s41512-019-0046-9. eCollection 2019. Diagn Progn Res. 2019. PMID: 31093576 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials

