LU Yao 1,2 , YANG Qiuyu 3 , LIU Yafei 1,2 , LAI Honghao 1,2 , TIAN Chen 1,2 , TIAN Jinhui 4,5 , LI Jiang 6 , GE Long 1,2,5
  • 1. Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 2. Department of Social Science and Health Management, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 3. Evidence Based Nursing Centre, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 4. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 5. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 6. National Cancer Center/National Cancer Clinical Medical Research Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, P. R. China;
LI Jiang, Email: lij@cicams.ac.cn; GE Long, Email: gelong2009@163.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

The comparative diagnostic test accuracy (CDTA) study is an important part of diagnostic test accuracy, which aims to compare the accuracy of two or more index tests in the same study. With the development of CDTA studies and the methodology of systematic reviews, the number of CDTA systematic reviews has grown year by year and has provided evidence to support clinical decision-making. Compared with systematic review of single diagnostic test accuracy, the CDTA systematic review has its own unique features, especially in data extraction, risk of bias, and statistical analysis. This paper introduced the steps and precautions for writing a CDTA systematic review to provide references for CDTA systematic reviewers.

Citation: LU Yao, YANG Qiuyu, LIU Yafei, LAI Honghao, TIAN Chen, TIAN Jinhui, LI Jiang, GE Long. How to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative diagnostic test accuracy. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2022, 22(11): 1339-1347. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202206024 Copy

  • Previous Article

    BMI and risk of stroke: a dose-response meta-analysis
  • Next Article

    Interpretation of NutriGrade: a grading system to assess the quality of evidence for cohort studies on nutrition