Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Radiology. 2016 Oct;281(1):78-85. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016152229. Epub 2016 Apr 15.

Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy in Imaging Journals: Analysis of Pooling Techniques and Their Effect on Summary Estimates of Diagnostic Accuracy.

Author information

1
From the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (T.A.M.); Department of Radiology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Room c159, Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1Y 4E9 (M.D.F.M.); and Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (D.A.K., P.M.M.B.).

Abstract

Purpose To determine whether authors of systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies published in imaging journals used recommended methods for meta-analysis, and to evaluate the effect of traditional methods on summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Materials and Methods Medline was searched for published systematic reviews that included meta-analysis of test accuracy data limited to imaging journals published from January 2005 to May 2015. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and classified methods for meta-analysis as traditional (univariate fixed- or random-effects pooling or summary receiver operating characteristic curve) or recommended (bivariate model or hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic curve). Use of methods was analyzed for variation with time, geographical location, subspecialty, and journal. Results from reviews in which study authors used traditional univariate pooling methods were recalculated with a bivariate model. Results Three hundred reviews met the inclusion criteria, and in 118 (39%) of those, authors used recommended meta-analysis methods. No change in the method used was observed with time (r = 0.54, P = .09); however, there was geographic (χ(2) = 15.7, P = .001), subspecialty (χ(2) = 46.7, P < .001), and journal (χ(2) = 27.6, P < .001) heterogeneity. Fifty-one univariate random-effects meta-analyses were reanalyzed with the bivariate model; the average change in the summary estimate was -1.4% (P < .001) for sensitivity and -2.5% (P < .001) for specificity. The average change in width of the confidence interval was 7.7% (P < .001) for sensitivity and 9.9% (P ≤ .001) for specificity. Conclusion Recommended methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy in imaging journals are used in a minority of reviews; this has not changed significantly with time. Traditional (univariate) methods allow overestimation of diagnostic accuracy and provide narrower confidence intervals than do recommended (bivariate) methods. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

PMID:
27082781
DOI:
10.1148/radiol.2016152229
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center