Cargando…

Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health

OBJECTIVES: To explain methods for data synthesis of evidence from diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, and to illustrate different types of analyses that may be performed in a DTA systematic review. METHODS: We described properties of meta-analytic methods for quantitative synthesis of evidence....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Takwoingi, Yemisi, Riley, Richard D, Deeks, Jonathan J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4680179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26446042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102228
_version_ 1782405646829748224
author Takwoingi, Yemisi
Riley, Richard D
Deeks, Jonathan J
author_facet Takwoingi, Yemisi
Riley, Richard D
Deeks, Jonathan J
author_sort Takwoingi, Yemisi
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To explain methods for data synthesis of evidence from diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, and to illustrate different types of analyses that may be performed in a DTA systematic review. METHODS: We described properties of meta-analytic methods for quantitative synthesis of evidence. We used a DTA review comparing the accuracy of three screening questionnaires for bipolar disorder to illustrate application of the methods for each type of analysis. RESULTS: The discriminatory ability of a test is commonly expressed in terms of sensitivity (proportion of those with the condition who test positive) and specificity (proportion of those without the condition who test negative). There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, as an increasing threshold for defining test positivity will decrease sensitivity and increase specificity. Methods recommended for meta-analysis of DTA studies --such as the bivariate or hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model --jointly summarise sensitivity and specificity while taking into account this threshold effect, as well as allowing for between study differences in test performance beyond what would be expected by chance. The bivariate model focuses on estimation of a summary sensitivity and specificity at a common threshold while the HSROC model focuses on the estimation of a summary curve from studies that have used different thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide answers to important clinical questions. We hope this article will provide clinicians with sufficient understanding of the terminology and methods to aid interpretation of systematic reviews and facilitate better patient care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4680179
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46801792015-12-18 Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health Takwoingi, Yemisi Riley, Richard D Deeks, Jonathan J Evid Based Ment Health Statistics in Practice OBJECTIVES: To explain methods for data synthesis of evidence from diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, and to illustrate different types of analyses that may be performed in a DTA systematic review. METHODS: We described properties of meta-analytic methods for quantitative synthesis of evidence. We used a DTA review comparing the accuracy of three screening questionnaires for bipolar disorder to illustrate application of the methods for each type of analysis. RESULTS: The discriminatory ability of a test is commonly expressed in terms of sensitivity (proportion of those with the condition who test positive) and specificity (proportion of those without the condition who test negative). There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, as an increasing threshold for defining test positivity will decrease sensitivity and increase specificity. Methods recommended for meta-analysis of DTA studies --such as the bivariate or hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model --jointly summarise sensitivity and specificity while taking into account this threshold effect, as well as allowing for between study differences in test performance beyond what would be expected by chance. The bivariate model focuses on estimation of a summary sensitivity and specificity at a common threshold while the HSROC model focuses on the estimation of a summary curve from studies that have used different thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide answers to important clinical questions. We hope this article will provide clinicians with sufficient understanding of the terminology and methods to aid interpretation of systematic reviews and facilitate better patient care. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-11 2015-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4680179/ /pubmed/26446042 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102228 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Statistics in Practice
Takwoingi, Yemisi
Riley, Richard D
Deeks, Jonathan J
Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health
title Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health
title_full Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health
title_fullStr Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health
title_full_unstemmed Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health
title_short Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health
title_sort meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health
topic Statistics in Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4680179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26446042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102228
work_keys_str_mv AT takwoingiyemisi metaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesinmentalhealth
AT rileyrichardd metaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesinmentalhealth
AT deeksjonathanj metaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracystudiesinmentalhealth