Abstract
The performance of a diagnostic test is always appraised in comparison to one or several other competing tests, which may be other index or reference tests. The continuum in results of such tests is typically simplified using one or more threshold, eventually leading to a contingency table (e.g., a 2×2 table). Such format is the formal basis for the computation of several dimensions of comparative diagnostic accuracy, from sensitivity, to specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, and area under the curve of receiver operating curve, among the others. This is at odds with incidence studies, prognostic research, and controlled trials, which instead lead to more common measures of effect such as odds ratios, relative risks, and hazard ratios, among the others. Sources of bias and threats to the internal and external validity of diagnostic test accuracy studies also differ substantially from methodological issues pertinent to incidence studies, prognostic research, and controlled trials. The key design features, the complex interplay between index and reference test, and the theoretical distance between test results and clinical outcomes characterize the key peculiarities of diagnostic test accuracy studies. The present chapter provides an overview of design and analytical aspects of such studies, including a sample dataset and computing code for detailed and comprehensive analyses. Thorough knowledge and mastery of such peculiarities is crucial before facing a plethora of similar studies on diagnostic test accuracy when envisioning a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scholarly literature.
The best physician is also a philosopher
Galen
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Cochrane collaboration: handbook for diagnostic test accuracy reviews. http://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed 28 June 2018.
EUnetHTA guideline: meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/default/files/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Meta-analysis%20of%20Diagnostic%20Test%20Accuracy%20Studies_Guideline_Final%20Nov%202014.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.
Biondi-Zoccai G, editor. Network meta-analysis: evidence synthesis with mixed treatment comparison. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers; 2014.
Biondi-Zoccai G. Umbrella reviews. Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies. Springer International: Cham, Switzerland; 2016.
Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 2006;332:1089–92.
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. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:882–93.
Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–113.
Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667–76.
Siontis KC, Siontis GC, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JP. Diagnostic tests often fail to lead to changes in patient outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:612–21.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, QUADAS-2 Steering Group. A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1093–104.
Jarvik JG. The research framework. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:873–8.
Krupinski EA, Jiang Y. Anniversary paper: evaluation of medical imaging systems. Med Phys. 2008;35:645–59.
Thornbury JR. Eugene W. Caldwell lecture. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:1–8.
Kim KW, Lee J, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part I. General guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16:1175–87.
Lins S, Icks A, Meyer G. Understanding, comprehensibility and acceptance of an evidence-based consumer information brochure on fall prevention in old age: a focus group study. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11:26.
Spencer-Bonilla G, Singh Ospina N, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Brito JP, Iñiguez-Ariza N, Tamhane S, Erwin PJ, Murad MH, Montori VM. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in endocrinology: an audit of methods, reporting, and performance. Endocrine. 2017;57:18–34.
Pewsner D, Battaglia M, Minder C, Marx A, Bucher HC, Egger M. Ruling a diagnosis in or out with “SpPIn” and “SnNOut”: a note of caution. BMJ. 2004;329:209–13.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.
Novara M, D’Ascenzo F, Gonella A, Bollati M, Biondi-Zoccai G, Moretti C, Omedè P, Sciuto F, Sheiban I, Gaita F. Changing of SYNTAX score performing fractional flow reserve in multivessel coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2012;13:368–75.
Nudi F, Lotrionte M, Biasucci LM, Peruzzi M, Marullo AG, Frati G, Valenti V, Giordano A, Biondi-Zoccai G. Comparative safety and effectiveness of coronary computed tomography: systematic review and meta-analysis including 11 randomized controlled trials and 19,957 patients. Int J Cardiol. 2016;222:352–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Stata code to repeat all the analyses and graphs reported in this chapter:
diagt Referencetestdichotomous Indextestdichotomous roctab Referencetestdichotomous Indextestcontinuous, table graph summary fagani 0.47 2.86 0.38, scheme(s2mono) fagani 0.07 2.86 0.38, scheme(s2mono) fagani 0.87 2.86 0.38, scheme(s2mono) graph matrix Indextestcontinuous Referencetestcontinuous ci2 Indextestcontinuous Referencetestcontinuous, corr spearman Indextestcontinuous Referencetestcontinuous concord Indextestcontinuous Referencetestcontinuous, summary loa
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Biondi-Zoccai, G., Mastrangeli, S., Peruzzi, M., Frati, G. (2018). Peculiarities of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. In: Biondi-Zoccai, G. (eds) Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78965-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78966-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)