Document Detail

Empirical evidence of the importance of comparative studies of diagnostic test accuracy.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23546566     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews that "compare" the accuracy of 2 or more tests often include different sets of studies for each test.
PURPOSE: To investigate the availability of direct comparative studies of test accuracy and to assess whether summary estimates of accuracy differ between meta-analyses of noncomparative and comparative studies.
DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews in any language from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1994 to October 2012.
STUDY SELECTION: 1 of 2 assessors selected reviews that evaluated at least 2 tests and identified meta-analyses that included both noncomparative studies and comparative studies.
DATA EXTRACTION: 1 of 3 assessors extracted data about review and study characteristics and test performance.
DATA SYNTHESIS: 248 reviews compared test accuracy; of the 6915 studies, 2113 (31%) were comparative. Thirty-six reviews (with 52 meta-analyses) had adequate studies to compare results of noncomparative and comparative studies by using a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic meta-regression model for each test comparison. In 10 meta-analyses, noncomparative studies ranked tests in the opposite order of comparative studies. A total of 25 meta-analyses showed more than a 2-fold discrepancy in the relative diagnostic odds ratio between noncomparative and comparative studies. Differences in accuracy estimates between noncomparative and comparative studies were greater than expected by chance (P < 0.001).
LIMITATION: A paucity of comparative studies limited exploration of direction in bias.
CONCLUSION: Evidence derived from noncomparative studies often differs from that derived from comparative studies. Robustly designed studies in which all patients receive all tests or are randomly assigned to receive one or other of the tests should be more routinely undertaken and are preferred for evidence to guide test selection.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom).
Yemisi Takwoingi; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan J Deeks
Related Documents :
24171896 - Ophthalmic diagnostic tests, orbital anatomy, and adnexal histology of the broad-snoute...
24407306 - Designing pooling systems for noisy high-throughput protein-protein interaction experim...
19053996 - Three-dimensional array-based group testing algorithms.
18345116 - Interference imaging for aspheric surface testing.
17170386 - Comparison of two interferon-gamma assays and tuberculin skin test for tracing tubercul...
11113646 - Cause of high variability in drug dissolution testing and its impact on setting toleran...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Annals of internal medicine     Volume:  158     ISSN:  1539-3704     ISO Abbreviation:  Ann. Intern. Med.     Publication Date:  2013 Apr 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-04-02     Completed Date:  2013-05-22     Revised Date:  2014-03-14    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0372351     Medline TA:  Ann Intern Med     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  544-54     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Diagnostic Tests, Routine / standards*
Evidence-Based Medicine
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Research Design*
Review Literature as Topic
Selection Bias
Grant Support
DRF-2011-04-135//Department of Health

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Medical management to prevent recurrent nephrolithiasis in adults: a systematic review for an Americ...
Next Document:  Role of Adaptor Molecule Gab2 in Mast Cell-mediated Allergy Response.