Meta-analyses Of Test Accuracy Research Articles

Predicting IDH and ATRX mutations in gliomas from radiomic features with machine learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review aims to evaluate the quality and accuracy of ML algorithms in predicting ATRX and IDH mutation status in patients with glioma through the analysis of radiomic features extracted from medical imaging. The potential clinical impacts and areas for further improvement in non-invasive glioma diagnosis, classification and prognosis are also identified and discussed. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic and Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) statement. Databases including PubMed, Science Direct, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Medline, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to April 2024. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns. Additionally, meta-regression identified covariates contributing to heterogeneity before a subgroup meta-analysis was conducted. Pooled sensitivities, specificities and area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated for the prediction of ATRX and IDH mutations. Eleven studies involving 1,685 patients with grade I-IV glioma were included. Primary contributors to heterogeneity included the MRI modalities utilised (conventional only vs. combined) and the types of ML models employed. The meta-analysis revealed pooled sensitivities of 0.682 for prediction of ATRX loss and 0.831 for IDH mutations, specificities of 0.874 and 0.828, and AUC values of 0.842 and 0.948, respectively. Interestingly, incorporating semantics and clinical data, including patient demographics, improved the diagnostic performance of ML models. The high AUC in the prediction of both mutations demonstrates an overall robust diagnostic performance of ML, indicating the potential for accurate, non-invasive diagnosis and precise prognosis. Future research should focus on integrating diverse data types, including advanced imaging, semantics and clinical data while also aiming to standardise the collection and integration of multimodal data. This approach will enhance clinical applicability and consistency.

Diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities for splenic malignancies: A comparative meta-analysis

Background and objectivesThe spleen hosts both benign and malignant lesions. Despite multiple imaging modalities, the distinction between these lesions poses a diagnostic challenge, marked by varying diagnostic accuracy levels across methods. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of various imaging techniques for detecting malignant splenic lesions. MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases for studies evaluating imaging techniques in detecting malignant splenic lesions. Data extraction included diagnostic accuracy metrics, and methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Diagnostic Test Accuracy meta-analyses were conducted using R (version: 4.2.1). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to compare different modalities and clinical settings. ResultsOur study included 28 studies (pooled sample size: 2358), primarily using retrospective designs with histopathology as the reference standard. PET scan demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC: 92 %), demonstrating a sensitivity of 93 % (95 % CI: 80.4 % - 97.7 %) and a specificity of 82.8 % (95 % CI: 71.1 % - 90.4 %). Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), Contrast-enhanced CT scan, and contrast-enhanced MRI also showed impressive performance with AUCs of 91.4 %, 90.9 %, and 85.3 %, respectively. Differences among these modalities were not statistically significant, but they outperformed non-contrast-enhanced methods. PET and CEUS exhibited higher specificity for lymphoma cases compared to studies including other malignancies. Conclusion and clinical implicationsOverall, PET emerges as the best modality for splenic malignancies, and CEUS and CE-MRI show promise as potential alternatives, notably due to their reduced radiation exposure. Further research is essential for precise malignancy differentiation.

Diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis: A systematic review and accuracy meta-analysis of non-invasive tests available in primary care

Background: Endometriosis is a chronic, often debilitating condition with a current significant delay from symptom onset to diagnosis with much of this in primary care. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the primary literature was conducted to investigate the accuracy of symptoms, clinical history and first-line non-invasive tests to predict pelvic endometriosis (PROSPERO: CRD42020187543). We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus from conception (1966; 1972; 1997; 2004 respectively) to September 2022 for primary test accuracy studies assessing non-invasive tests against reference standard diagnosis for endometriosis. Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality assessment. Grading of evidence was performed using a novel visual pentagon model. Meta-analyses of test accuracy was estimated using bivariate random effects models. Results: The 125 included studies (250,574 participants) showed mixed quality. Studies applying non-surgical (database/self-reporting) reference standard had a greater risk of bias. In 98 studies applying surgical reference standard, summary diagnostic odds ratios for endometriosis were: dysmenorrhoea 2.56 (95% confidence interval 1.99-3.29); pelvic pain 2.56 (1.73-3.74); dyschezia 2.05 (1.36-3.10); dyspareunia 2.45 (1.71-3.52); family history of endometriosis 6.79 (4.08-11.3); nulligravidity of 2.01 (1.62-2.50); body mass index (BMI) ≥30kg/m2 0.37 (0.19-0.68); trans-vaginal ultrasound scan (TVUSS) endometrioma 91.2 (44.0-189); TVUSS invasive endometriosis 26.1 (9.28-73.5); and cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) >35U/mL 16.0 (8.09-31.7). Sensitivity analysis excluding all high-risk studies found concordant results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis collated the performance of non-invasive tests for endometriosis across a comprehensive and geographically varied population. Study quality was mixed, however results were consistent with high-risk studies excluded. These findings will inform future prediction models for triage in primary care.

Consumer sleep technology for the screening of obstructive sleep apnea and snoring: current status and a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

There are concerns about the validation and accuracy of currently available consumer sleep technology for sleep-disordered breathing. The present report provides a background review of existing consumer sleep technologies and discloses the methods and procedures for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of these devices and apps for the detection of obstructive sleep apnea and snoring in comparison with polysomnography. The search will be performed in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library). Studies will be selected in two steps, first by an analysis of abstracts followed by full-text analysis, and two independent reviewers will perform both phases. Primary outcomes include apnea-hypopnea index, respiratory disturbance index, respiratory event index, oxygen desaturation index, and snoring duration for both index and reference tests, as well as the number of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives for each threshold, as well as for epoch-by-epoch and event-by-event results, which will be considered for the calculation of surrogate measures (including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy). Diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses will be performed using the Chu and Cole bivariate binomial model. Mean difference meta-analysis will be performed for continuous outcomes using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Analyses will be performed independently for each outcome. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will evaluate the effects of the types (wearables, nearables, bed sensors, smartphone applications), technologies (e.g., oximeter, microphone, arterial tonometry, accelerometer), the role of manufacturers, and the representativeness of the samples.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Amsler Grid Test for Detecting Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Patients with nonneovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are encouraged to use the Amsler grid test for self-assessment to facilitate early diagnosis. The test is widely recommended, suggesting a belief that it signals worsening AMD, warranting its use in home monitoring. To systematically review studies of the diagnostic test accuracy of the Amsler grid in the diagnosis of neovascular AMD and to perform diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses. A systematic literature search was conducted in 12 databases for relevant titles from database inception until May 7, 2022. Studies included those with groups defined as having (1) neovascular AMD and (2) either healthy eyes or eyes with nonneovascular AMD. The index test was the Amsler grid. The reference standard was ophthalmic examination. After removal of obviously irrelevant reports, 2 authors (J.B. and M.S.) independently screened the remaining references in full text for potential eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by a third author (Y.S.). Two authors (J.B. and I.P.) independently extracted all data and evaluated quality and applicability of eligible studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Disagreements were resolved by a third author (Y.S.). Sensitivity and specificity of the Amsler grid for detecting neovascular AMD with comparators being either healthy control participants or patients with nonneovascular AMD. Of 523 records screened, 10 studies were included with a total of 1890 eyes (mean participant age ranging from 62 to 83 years). Sensitivity and specificity to diagnose neovascular AMD were 67% (95% CI, 51%-79%) and 99% (95% CI, 85%-100%), respectively, when comparators were healthy control participants and 71% (95% CI, 60%-80%) and 63% (95% CI, 49%-51%), respectively, when control participants were patients with nonneovascular AMD. Overall, potential sources of bias were low across studies. Although the Amsler grid is easy and inexpensive to use for detection of metamorphopsia, its sensitivity may be at levels typically not recommended for monitoring. Coupling this lower sensitivity with only moderate specificity to identify neovascular AMD in a population at risk, these findings suggest that such patients typically should be encouraged to undergo ophthalmic examination regularly, regardless of any results of Amsler grid self-assessment.

P144 - Accuracy of novel urinary biomarker tests for diagnosis and surveillance of NMIBC: A systematic review, diagnostic test accuracy and network meta-analyses

P144 - Accuracy of novel urinary biomarker tests for diagnosis and surveillance of NMIBC: A systematic review, diagnostic test accuracy and network meta-analyses

Diagnostic Performance of Pre-Treatment 18f-Fluoro-Deoxy-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography With or Without Computed Tomography in Patients with Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: Updated Systematic Review and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analyses

Background: There is low-quality evidence regarding the value of pre-treatment 18F-flouro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) with or without computed tomography (CT) in the diagnostic evaluation of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). This review aimed to assess diagnostic performance of FDG-PET(CT) in PCNSL. Methods: Eligible studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of pre-treatment FDG-PET(CT) in immunocompetent adults with PCNSL were identified through systematic literature review of Medline via PubMed from 1990 till 2019 using validated search strategy. Data on diagnostic performance from individual studies was summarized in a 2 X 2 table on per-patient level classifying them as truepositives, true-negatives, false-positives, and false-negatives using histo-pathological diagnosis as reference standard and pooled together using DerSimonian Laird method (random-effects model) to calculate weighted-mean pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Quality of primary studies including risk of bias was assessed using QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Findings: A total of 603 studies were identified of which 29 primary studies involving 967 patients were included. Weighted-mean (95%CI) pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of pretreatment FDG-PET(CT) for diagnosis of PCNSL was 87% (83-90%), 85% (81-88%), 84% (81-88%), 87% (84-90%) and 29.78 (18.34-48.35) respectively. Included studies were generally associated with low to unclear risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability. Interpretation: This is the largest dataset using modern meta-analytic methods including rigorous quality assessment demonstrating acceptably high diagnostic accuracy of pre-treatment FDG-PET(CT) in immunocompetent patients with PCNSL. Funding Statement: No funding was involved in this study. Declaration of Interests: None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Another oral cancer clinical guideline - but does it propose changes to dental practice?

Scope and purpose This guideline concerns patients with no lesions, innocuous or nonsuspicious lesions, lesions suspected to be potentially malignant as well as malignant lesions of the oral cavity. The audience for this guideline is health care workers who examine the mouth as well as community dental health co-ordinators and policy makers. Methodology The Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation reporting checklist II and the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist were followed and the guideline is partly informed by systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses. Studies assessing patients' values and preferences were also considered. The process of moving from the evidence to decisions and the formulation was guided by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).Review and Updating Updates for this guideline will be conducted every five years or when new emerging evidence indicates a potential change in the recommendation statements from the expert panel. Any updated versions of this guideline will be available at the ADA Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry's website: www.ebd.ada Recommendations The expert panel developed six conditional recommendations, all based on evidence rated as low to very low quality using GRADE. 1. For patients with a clinically evident oral mucosal lesion with an unknown clinical diagnosis considered to be seemingly innocuous or nonsuspicious of malignancy, or other symptoms, clinicians should follow up periodically to determine the need for further evaluation. If the lesion has not resolved and the clinical diagnosis of a potentially malignant disorder cannot be ruled out, then clinicians should perform a biopsy of the lesion or refer the patient to a specialist.2. For patients with a clinically evident oral mucosal lesion considered to be suspicious of a potentially malignant or malignant disorder, or other symptoms, clinicians should perform a biopsy of the lesion or provide immediate referral to a specialist.3. Cytologic adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders among adult patients with clinically evident, seemingly innocuous or suspicious lesions are not recommended. Should a patient decline the clinician's recommendation for performing a biopsy of the lesion or referral to a specialist, the clinician can use a cytologic adjunct to provide additional lesion assessment. A positive or atypical cytologic test result reinforces the need for a biopsy or referral.A negative cytologic test result indicates the need for periodic follow-up of the patient. If the clinician detects persistence or progression of the lesion, immediately performing a biopsy of the lesion or referral to a specialist is indicated.4. The panel does not recommend autofluorescence, tissue reflectance or vital staining adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders among adult patients with clinically evident, seemingly innocuous or suspicious lesions.5. The panel suggests that for patients with no clinically evident lesions or symptoms, no further action is necessary at that time.6. The panel does not recommend commercially available salivary adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders among adult patients with or without clinically evident, seemingly innocuous or suspicious lesions and their use should be considered only in the context of research.Research recommendations There is a need for better estimation of the prevalence of potentially malignant disorders (PMDs) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in populations with different baseline risks. More information on patients' values and preferences is required as well as studies on the diagnostic test accuracy of cytologic and salivary adjuncts.

Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and Germany

BackgroundDiagnostic meta-analyses on caries detection methods should assist practitioners in their daily practice. However, conventional meta-analysis estimates may be inapplicable due to differences in test conduct, applied thresholds and assessed population between settings. Our aim was to demonstrate the impact of tailored meta-analysis of visual and radiographic caries detection to different settings using setting-specific routine data.MethodsPublished systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the accuracy of visual and radiographic caries detection were used. In two settings (a private practice in Germany and a public health clinic in Egypt), routine data of a total of 100 (n = 50/practice) consecutive 12–14 year-olds were collected. Test-positive rates of visual and radiographic detection for initial and advanced carious lesions on occlusal or proximal surfaces of molars were used to tailor meta-analyses. If prevalence data were available, these were also used for tailoring.ResultsFrom the original reviews, 210 and 100 heterogeneous studies on visual and radiographic caries detection were included in our meta-analyses. For radiographic detection, sensitivity and specificity estimates derived from conventional and tailored meta-analysis were similar. For visual detection of advanced occlusal carious lesions, the conventional meta-analysis yielded a sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of 64.6% (57–71) and 90.9% (88–93), whereas the tailored estimates for Egypt were 75.1% (70–81) and 84.9% (82–89), respectively, and 43.7% (37–51) and 96.5% (95–97) for Germany, respectively.ConclusionConventional test accuracy meta-analyses may yield aggregate estimates which are inapplicable to specific settings. Routine data may be used to produce a meta-analysis estimate which is tailored to the setting and thereby improving its applicability.

Placental growth factor (alone or in combination with soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1) as an aid to the assessment of women with suspected pre-eclampsia: systematic review and economic analysis.

Pre-eclampsia (PE) prediction based on blood pressure, presence of protein in the urine, symptoms and laboratory test abnormalities can result in false-positive diagnoses. This may lead to unnecessary antenatal admissions and preterm delivery. Blood tests that measure placental growth factor (PlGF) or the ratio of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) to PlGF could aid prediction of PE if either were added to routine clinical assessment or used as a replacement for proteinuria testing. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of PlGF-based tests for patients referred to secondary care with suspected PE in weeks 20-37 of pregnancy. Systematic reviews and an economic analysis. Bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched up to July 2015 for English-language references. Conferences, websites, systematic reviews and confidential company submissions were also accessed. Systematic reviews of test accuracy and economic studies were conducted to inform an economic analysis. Test accuracy studies were required to include women with suspected PE and report quantitatively the accuracy of PlGF-based tests; their risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria. The economic studies review had broad eligibility criteria to capture any types of economic analysis; critical appraisal employed standard checklists consistent with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. Study selection, critical appraisal and data extraction in both reviews were performed by two reviewers. An independent economic analysis was conducted based on a decision tree model, using the best evidence available. The model evaluates costs (2014, GBP) from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Given the short analysis time horizon, no discounting was undertaken. Four studies were included in the systematic review of test accuracy: two on Alere's Triage® PlGF test (Alere, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) for predicting PE requiring delivery within a specified time and two on Roche Diagnostics' Elecsys® sFlt-1 to PlGF ratio test (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) for predicting PE within a specified time. Three studies were included in the systematic review of economic studies, and two confidential company economic analyses were assessed separately. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses of test accuracy or cost-analysis outcomes, so narrative syntheses were conducted to inform the independent economic model. The model predicts that, when supplementing routine clinical assessment for rule-out and rule-in of PE, the two tests would be cost-saving in weeks 20-35 of gestation, and marginally cost-saving in weeks 35-37, but with minuscule impact on quality of life. Length of neonatal intensive care unit stay was the most influential parameter in sensitivity analyses. All other sensitivity analyses had negligible effects on results. No head-to-head comparisons of the tests were identified. No studies investigated accuracy of PlGF-based tests when used as a replacement for proteinuria testing. Test accuracy studies were found to be at high risk of clinical review bias. The Triage and Elecsys tests would save money if added to routine clinical assessment for PE. The magnitude of savings is uncertain, but the tests remain cost-saving under worst-case assumptions. Further research is required to clarify how the test results would be interpreted and applied in clinical practice. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017670. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Reporting completeness and transparency of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: A comparison of meta-analyses published before and after the PRISMA statement

ObjectiveMeta-analyses that are conducted rigorously and reported completely and transparently can provide accurate evidence to inform the best possible healthcare decisions. Guideline makers have raised concerns about the utility of existing evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. The objective of our study was to evaluate the transparency and completeness of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools using the PRISMA tool adapted for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2016 for recent meta-analyses in any language on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. Two reviewers independently assessed the transparency in reporting using the PRISMA tool with appropriate adaptations made for studies of diagnostic test accuracy. ResultsWe identified 21 eligible meta-analyses. Twelve of 21 meta-analyses complied with at least 50% of adapted PRISMA items. Of 30 adapted PRISMA items, 11 were fulfilled by ≥80% of included meta-analyses, 3 by 50–79% of meta-analyses, 7 by 25–45% of meta-analyses, and 9 by <25%. On average, post-PRISMA meta-analyses complied with 17 of 30 items compared to 13 of 30 items pre-PRISMA. ConclusionsDeficiencies in the transparency of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic test accuracy of depression screening tools of meta-analyses were identified. Authors, reviewers, and editors should adhere to the PRISMA statement to improve the reporting of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools.

A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.

BackgroundSelecting the most effective diagnostic method is essential for patient management and public health interventions. This requires evidence of the relative performance of alternative tests or diagnostic algorithms. Consequently, there is a need for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses allowing the comparison of the accuracy of two or more competing tests. The meta-analyses are however complicated by the paucity of studies that directly compare the performance of diagnostic tests. A second complication is that the diagnostic accuracy of the tests is usually determined through the comparison of the index test results with those of a reference standard. These reference standards are presumed to be perfect, i.e. allowing the classification of diseased and non-diseased subjects without error. In practice, this assumption is however rarely valid and most reference standards show false positive or false negative results. When an imperfect reference standard is used, the estimated accuracy of the tests of interest may be biased, as well as the comparisons between these tests.MethodsWe propose a model that allows for the comparison of the accuracy of two diagnostic tests using direct (head-to-head) comparisons as well as indirect comparisons through a third test. In addition, the model allows and corrects for imperfect reference tests. The model is inspired by mixed-treatment comparison meta-analyses that have been developed for the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. As the model is estimated using Bayesian methods, it can incorporate prior knowledge on the diagnostic accuracy of the reference tests used.ResultsWe show the bias that can result from using inappropriate methods in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests and how our method provides more correct estimates of the difference in diagnostic accuracy between two tests. As an illustration, we apply this model to a dataset on visceral leishmaniasis diagnostic tests, comparing the accuracy of the RK39 dipstick with that of the direct agglutination test.ConclusionsOur proposed meta-analytic model can improve the comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of competing tests in a systematic review. This is however only true if the studies and especially information on the reference tests used are sufficiently detailed. More specifically, the type and exact procedures used as reference tests are needed, including any cut-offs used and the number of subjects excluded from full reference test assessment. If this information is lacking, it may be better to limit the meta-analysis to direct comparisons.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0061-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Small-study effects and time trends in diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study.

BackgroundSmall-study effects and time trends have been identified in meta-analyses of randomized trials. We evaluated whether these effects are also present in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies.MethodsA systematic search identified test accuracy meta-analyses published between May and September 2012. In each meta-analysis, the strength of the associations between estimated accuracy of the test (diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity) and sample size and between accuracy estimates and time since first publication were evaluated using meta-regression models. The regression coefficients over all meta-analyses were summarized using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsForty-six meta-analyses and their corresponding primary studies (N = 859) were included. There was a non-significant relative change in the DOR of 1.01 per 100 additional participants (95% CI 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.07). In the subgroup of imaging studies, there was a relative increase in sensitivity of 1.13 per 100 additional diseased subjects (95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; P = 0.002). The relative change in DOR with time since first publication was 0.94 per 5 years (95% CI 0.80 to 1.10; P = 0.42). Sensitivity was lower in studies published later (relative change 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; P = 0.04).ConclusionsSmall-study effects and time trends do not seem to be as pronounced in meta-analyses of test accuracy studies as they are in meta-analyses of randomized trials. Small-study effects seem to be reversed in imaging, where larger studies tend to report higher sensitivity.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0049-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What is the test's accuracy in my practice population? Tailored meta-analysis provides a plausible estimate

ObjectivesDiagnostic test accuracy studies and meta-analyses may, in some cases, provide estimates that are highly improbable in practice; tailored meta-analysis provides a potential solution. To investigate the utility of tailored meta-analysis in synthesizing estimates of a test's accuracy compared with conventional meta-analysis for three case examples. Study Design and SettingMEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies, and routine data were collected on the test positive rate and disease prevalence from the case settings to define an applicable region for each setting. Three cases were evaluated: mammography in the NHS Breast Screening Programme, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to screen for depression in general practice, and Centor's criteria used to diagnose group A β-hemolytic streptococcus in general practice. For conventional meta-analysis, studies were selected using standard systematic review methods; for tailored meta-analysis, this selection was refined to those with results compatible with the applicable region for the setting. ResultsIn each example, studies were excluded as a result of incorporating an applicable region for the setting. Comparing tailored with conventional meta-analysis, the positive likelihood ratios (with 95% confidence intervals in brackets) were 36.5 (23.0, 57.9) and 19.8 (12.8, 30.9), respectively, for mammography and 4.89 (2.02, 11.8) and 2.35 (1.51, 3.67), respectively, for Centor's criteria. This had the effect of increasing the positive predictive value from 17% to 27% for mammography and 23% to 38% for Centor's criteria. ConclusionTailored meta-analysis has the potential to provide a plausible estimate for a test's accuracy, which is specific to the practice setting. When compared with conventional meta-analysis, the difference may, in some cases, be sufficient to lead to different decisions on patient management.

How to Critically Appraise the Clinical Literature

Recent efforts have been made to standardize the critical appraisal of clinical health care research. In this article, critical appraisal of diagnostic test accuracy studies, screening studies, therapeutic studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness studies, recommendations and/or guidelines, and medical education studies is discussed as are the available instruments to appraise the literature. By having standard appraisal instruments, these studies can be appraised more easily for completeness, bias, and applicability for implementation. Appraisal requires a different set of instruments, each designed for the individual type of research. We also hope that this article can be used in academic programs to educate the faculty and trainees of the available resources to improve critical appraisal of health research.

How to Report a Research Study

Incomplete reporting hampers the evaluation of results and bias in clinical research studies. Guidelines for reporting study design and methods have been developed to encourage authors and journals to include the required elements. Recent efforts have been made to standardize the reporting of clinical health research including clinical guidelines. In this article, the reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies, screening studies, therapeutic studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness assessments (CEA), recommendations and/or guidelines, and medical education studies is discussed. The available guidelines, many of which can be found at the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research network, on how to report these different types of health research are also discussed. We also hope that this article can be used in academic programs to educate the faculty and trainees of the available resources to improve our health research.

The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed

Background and Objective Publication bias and other sample size effects are issues for meta-analyses of test accuracy, as for randomized trials. We investigate limitations of standard funnel plots and tests when applied to meta-analyses of test accuracy and look for improved methods. Methods Type I and type II error rates for existing and alternative tests of sample size effects were estimated and compared in simulated meta-analyses of test accuracy. Results Type I error rates for the Begg, Egger, and Macaskill tests are inflated for typical diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), when disease prevalence differs from 50% and when thresholds favor sensitivity over specificity or vice versa. Regression and correlation tests based on functions of effective sample size are valid, if occasionally conservative, tests for sample size effects. Empirical evidence suggests that they have adequate power to be useful tests. When DORs are heterogeneous, however, all tests of funnel plot asymmetry have low power. Conclusion Existing tests that use standard errors of odds ratios are likely to be seriously misleading if applied to meta-analyses of test accuracy. The effective sample size funnel plot and associated regression test of asymmetry should be used to detect publication bias and other sample size related effects.

Cochrane Renal Group Report

THIS ISSUE contains your copy of the 2004 edition of the Renal Health Library. It contains bibliographic details and abstracts (when available) of more than 6,000 randomized controlled trials and the full text of 57 Cochrane systematic reviews related to kidney disease. It also contains the bibliographic details of some studies of diagnostic test accuracy and non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a new feature that we will develop further for 2005. Links to PubMed are given for MEDLINE-indexed articles. We have put considerable effort into hand-searching recent proceedings of the American Society of Nephrology, World Congress of Nephrology, and European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) conferences for reports of randomized controlled trials, and these are now on the Renal Health Library.

Cochrane renal group report

r HIS ISSUE contains your copy of the 2004 edition of the Renal Health Library. It ontains bibliographic details and abstracts (when vailable) of more than 6,000 randomized conrolled trials and the full text of 57 Cochrane ystematic reviews related to kidney disease. It lso contains the bibliographic details of some tudies of diagnostic test accuracy and nonochrane meta-analyses, a new feature that we ill develop further for 2005. Links to PubMed re given for MEDLINE-indexed articles. We ave put considerable effort into hand-searching ecent proceedings of the American Society of ephrology, World Congress of Nephrology, and uropean Renal Association–European Dialysis nd Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) confernces for reports of randomized controlled trials, nd these are now on the Renal Health Library. A eb version also is available through our Web ite. We would appreciate your feedback, which ou can send using the feedback form on the D-ROM or the Web site or by simply e-mailing s at crg@chw.edu.au. Our report this month contains a selection of ublished and ongoing randomized controlled trils added to our Specialized Register between Janury and June 2004. They have been selected for elevance and quality, including suitable sample ize and clinically relevant or patient-centered outomes. Visit our Web site (www.cochrane-renal. rg or through the American Journal of Kidney Dis-