Chapter 8: Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard"

Thomas A. Trikalinos, Cynthia M. Balion, Craig I. Coleman, Lauren Griffith, Pasqualina L. Santaguida, Ben Vandermeer, Rongwei (Rochelle) Fu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Synthesizing information on test performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios is often an important part of a systematic review of a medical test. Because many metrics of test performance are of interest, the meta-analysis of medical tests is more complex than the meta-analysis of interventions or associations. Sometimes, a helpful way to summarize medical test studies is to provide a "summary point", a summary sensitivity and a summary specificity. Other times, when the sensitivity or specificity estimates vary widely or when the test threshold varies, it is more helpful to synthesize data using a "summary line" that describes how the average sensitivity changes with the average specificity. Choosing the most helpful summary is subjective, and in some cases both summaries provide meaningful and complementary information. Because sensitivity and specificity are not independent across studies, the meta-analysis of medical tests is fundamentaly a multivariate problem, and should be addressed with multivariate methods. More complex analyses are needed if studies report results at multiple thresholds for positive tests. At the same time, quantitative analyses are used to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies. This can be performed in the context of proper (multivariate) meta-regressions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume27
Issue numberSUPPL.1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • gold standard
  • meta-analysis
  • test performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Trikalinos, T. A., Balion, C. M., Coleman, C. I., Griffith, L., Santaguida, P. L., Vandermeer, B., & Fu, R. R. (2012). Chapter 8: Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard". Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(SUPPL.1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1

Chapter 8 : Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard". / Trikalinos, Thomas A.; Balion, Cynthia M.; Coleman, Craig I.; Griffith, Lauren; Santaguida, Pasqualina L.; Vandermeer, Ben; Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle).

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 27, No. SUPPL.1, 06.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Trikalinos, TA, Balion, CM, Coleman, CI, Griffith, L, Santaguida, PL, Vandermeer, B & Fu, RR 2012, 'Chapter 8: Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard"', Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1
Trikalinos TA, Balion CM, Coleman CI, Griffith L, Santaguida PL, Vandermeer B et al. Chapter 8: Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard". Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2012 Jun;27(SUPPL.1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1
Trikalinos, Thomas A. ; Balion, Cynthia M. ; Coleman, Craig I. ; Griffith, Lauren ; Santaguida, Pasqualina L. ; Vandermeer, Ben ; Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle). / Chapter 8 : Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard". In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 27, No. SUPPL.1.
@article{a8d048c63a524c10992de37f5b7cb69c,
title = "Chapter 8: Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a {"}gold standard{"}",
abstract = "Synthesizing information on test performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios is often an important part of a systematic review of a medical test. Because many metrics of test performance are of interest, the meta-analysis of medical tests is more complex than the meta-analysis of interventions or associations. Sometimes, a helpful way to summarize medical test studies is to provide a {"}summary point{"}, a summary sensitivity and a summary specificity. Other times, when the sensitivity or specificity estimates vary widely or when the test threshold varies, it is more helpful to synthesize data using a {"}summary line{"} that describes how the average sensitivity changes with the average specificity. Choosing the most helpful summary is subjective, and in some cases both summaries provide meaningful and complementary information. Because sensitivity and specificity are not independent across studies, the meta-analysis of medical tests is fundamentaly a multivariate problem, and should be addressed with multivariate methods. More complex analyses are needed if studies report results at multiple thresholds for positive tests. At the same time, quantitative analyses are used to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies. This can be performed in the context of proper (multivariate) meta-regressions.",
keywords = "gold standard, meta-analysis, test performance",
author = "Trikalinos, {Thomas A.} and Balion, {Cynthia M.} and Coleman, {Craig I.} and Lauren Griffith and Santaguida, {Pasqualina L.} and Ben Vandermeer and Fu, {Rongwei (Rochelle)}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "SUPPL.1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Chapter 8

T2 - Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard"

AU - Trikalinos, Thomas A.

AU - Balion, Cynthia M.

AU - Coleman, Craig I.

AU - Griffith, Lauren

AU - Santaguida, Pasqualina L.

AU - Vandermeer, Ben

AU - Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle)

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - Synthesizing information on test performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios is often an important part of a systematic review of a medical test. Because many metrics of test performance are of interest, the meta-analysis of medical tests is more complex than the meta-analysis of interventions or associations. Sometimes, a helpful way to summarize medical test studies is to provide a "summary point", a summary sensitivity and a summary specificity. Other times, when the sensitivity or specificity estimates vary widely or when the test threshold varies, it is more helpful to synthesize data using a "summary line" that describes how the average sensitivity changes with the average specificity. Choosing the most helpful summary is subjective, and in some cases both summaries provide meaningful and complementary information. Because sensitivity and specificity are not independent across studies, the meta-analysis of medical tests is fundamentaly a multivariate problem, and should be addressed with multivariate methods. More complex analyses are needed if studies report results at multiple thresholds for positive tests. At the same time, quantitative analyses are used to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies. This can be performed in the context of proper (multivariate) meta-regressions.

AB - Synthesizing information on test performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios is often an important part of a systematic review of a medical test. Because many metrics of test performance are of interest, the meta-analysis of medical tests is more complex than the meta-analysis of interventions or associations. Sometimes, a helpful way to summarize medical test studies is to provide a "summary point", a summary sensitivity and a summary specificity. Other times, when the sensitivity or specificity estimates vary widely or when the test threshold varies, it is more helpful to synthesize data using a "summary line" that describes how the average sensitivity changes with the average specificity. Choosing the most helpful summary is subjective, and in some cases both summaries provide meaningful and complementary information. Because sensitivity and specificity are not independent across studies, the meta-analysis of medical tests is fundamentaly a multivariate problem, and should be addressed with multivariate methods. More complex analyses are needed if studies report results at multiple thresholds for positive tests. At the same time, quantitative analyses are used to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies. This can be performed in the context of proper (multivariate) meta-regressions.

KW - gold standard

KW - meta-analysis

KW - test performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862669163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862669163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1

DO - 10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 22648676

AN - SCOPUS:84862669163

VL - 27

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - SUPPL.1

ER -