Evaluation on the Effect Index of Diagnostic Test_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHANG Jun , XU Zhiwei ,  LI Ke

Department of Preventive Medicine, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou 505100, China;

Corresponding author：

LI Ke, Email: kli@stu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Diagnostic test; Meta-analysis; Measurement indicator

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20130156

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Based on the guidelines of the diagnostic test systematic review, this study elaborated the statistical processing of the pooling of data detailed in the systematic review of diagnostic test, discussed the methods for identification and handling of the heterogeneity, evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of the index of the accuracy in diagnostic tests, and proposed the identification method of the publication bias. It also took the data from the published article entitled “Diagnostic Value of ProGRP and NSE for Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis” as an example for analysis and illustration, which presented clearly the data processing and interpretation of the systematic review of diagnostic test, in order to provide references for clinical researchers to study and conduct the systematic review of diagnostic test.

Citation： ZHANG Jun,XU Zhiwei,LI Ke. Evaluation on the Effect Index of Diagnostic Test. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2013, 13(7): 890-895. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20130156 Copy

1.	Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2003, 3: 25.
2.	杨克虎, 系统评价指导手册, 人民卫生出版社, 2010.
3.	Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2002, 2: 9.
4.	Littenberg B, Moses LE, Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports. Medical Decision Making, 1993, 13: 313-321.
5.	Midgette AS, Stukel TA, Littenberg B. A meta-analytic method for summarizing diagnostic test performances. Medical Decision Making, 1993, 13: 253-257.
6.	Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1994, 120: 667-676.
7.	Hasselblad V, Hedges LV. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1995, 117: 167.
8.	Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 1998, 122: 675.
9.	Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ, 2001, 323: 157-162.
10.	Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2005, 142: 1048-1055.
11.	Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, et al. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2008, 149: 889-897.
12.	Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 2009, 6: e1000100.
13.	Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 1999, 18: 2693-2708.
14.	Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 2001, 20: 3625-3633.
15.	Higgins J, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1539-1558.
16.	Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PMM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1525-1537.
17.	Cox DR, Snell EJ. Analysis of binary data. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1989.
18.	Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. Wiley-interscience, 2002.
19.	Walter S. Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1237-1256.
20.	Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, et al. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2003, 56: 1129-1135.
21.	Mitchell MD. Validation of the summary ROC for diagnostic test meta-analysis: a Monte Carlo simulation. Academic radiology, 2003, 10: 25-31.
22.	Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley-Interscience, 2007.
23.	Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: Data‐analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Statistics in Medicine, 2007, 12: 1293-1316.
24.	Agresti A. Analysis of ordinal categorical data. Wiley, 2010.
25.	Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 1999, 282: 1061-1066.
26.	Greenland S. Small-sample bias and corrections for conditional maximum-likelihood odds-ratio estimators. Biostatistics, 2000, 1: 113-122.
27.	Sterne JAC, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000, 53: 1119-1129.
28.	Sterne JAC, Egger M, Smith GD. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ, 2001, 323: 101-105.
29.	Suzuki S, Moro-oka T, Choudhry NK. The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004, 57: 461-469.
30.	Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005, 58: 882-893.
31.	Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Nisio Di M, et al. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006, 174: 469-476.
32.	王纪文, 高佳, 赫捷. ProGRP 与 NSE 对小细胞肺癌诊断价值的 Meta 分析. 中国肺癌杂志, 2010, 13: 1094-1100.
33.	张天嵩, 钟文昭. Meta-DiSc 软件在诊断试验 Meta 分析中的应用. 循证医学, 2008, 8: 97-100.
34.	Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
35.	Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005, 58: 982-990.
36.	Gallagher EJ. Clinical utility of likelihood ratios. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1998, 31: 391-397.
37.	Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, C. Minder, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1997, 315: 629-634.

1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2003, 3: 25.
2. 杨克虎, 系统评价指导手册, 人民卫生出版社, 2010.
3. Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2002, 2: 9.
4. Littenberg B, Moses LE, Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports. Medical Decision Making, 1993, 13: 313-321.
5. Midgette AS, Stukel TA, Littenberg B. A meta-analytic method for summarizing diagnostic test performances. Medical Decision Making, 1993, 13: 253-257.
6. Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1994, 120: 667-676.
7. Hasselblad V, Hedges LV. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1995, 117: 167.
8. Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 1998, 122: 675.
9. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ, 2001, 323: 157-162.
10. Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2005, 142: 1048-1055.
11. Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, et al. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2008, 149: 889-897.
12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 2009, 6: e1000100.
13. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 1999, 18: 2693-2708.
14. Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 2001, 20: 3625-3633.
15. Higgins J, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1539-1558.
16. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PMM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1525-1537.
17. Cox DR, Snell EJ. Analysis of binary data. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1989.
18. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. Wiley-interscience, 2002.
19. Walter S. Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Statistics in Medicine, 2002, 21: 1237-1256.
20. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, et al. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2003, 56: 1129-1135.
21. Mitchell MD. Validation of the summary ROC for diagnostic test meta-analysis: a Monte Carlo simulation. Academic radiology, 2003, 10: 25-31.
22. Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley-Interscience, 2007.
23. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: Data‐analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Statistics in Medicine, 2007, 12: 1293-1316.
24. Agresti A. Analysis of ordinal categorical data. Wiley, 2010.
25. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 1999, 282: 1061-1066.
26. Greenland S. Small-sample bias and corrections for conditional maximum-likelihood odds-ratio estimators. Biostatistics, 2000, 1: 113-122.
27. Sterne JAC, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000, 53: 1119-1129.
28. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Smith GD. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ, 2001, 323: 101-105.
29. Suzuki S, Moro-oka T, Choudhry NK. The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004, 57: 461-469.
30. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005, 58: 882-893.
31. Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Nisio Di M, et al. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006, 174: 469-476.
32. 王纪文, 高佳, 赫捷. ProGRP 与 NSE 对小细胞肺癌诊断价值的 Meta 分析. 中国肺癌杂志, 2010, 13: 1094-1100.
33. 张天嵩, 钟文昭. Meta-DiSc 软件在诊断试验 Meta 分析中的应用. 循证医学, 2008, 8: 97-100.
34. Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
35. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005, 58: 982-990.
36. Gallagher EJ. Clinical utility of likelihood ratios. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1998, 31: 391-397.
37. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, C. Minder, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1997, 315: 629-634.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Evaluation on the Effect Index of Diagnostic Test

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content