Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorNaaktgeboren, Christiana A.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorOchodo, Eleanor A.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorVan Enst, Wynanda A.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDe Groot, Joris A. H.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorHooft, Lottyen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorLeeflang, Mariska M. G.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorBossuyt, Patrick M.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMoons, Karel G. M.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorReitsma, Johannes B.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-28T13:12:25Z
dc.date.available2017-07-28T13:12:25Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.descriptionCITATION: Naaktgeboren, C. A., et al. 2016. Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. Medical Research Methodology, 6:6, doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0108-4.
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com
dc.description.abstractENGLISH SUMMARY : Background: To describe approaches used in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies for assessing variability in estimates of accuracy between studies and to provide guidance in this area. Methods: Meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies published between May and September 2012 were systematically identified. Information on how the variability in results was investigated was extracted. Results: Of the 53 meta-analyses included in the review, most (n=48; 91 %) presented variability in diagnostic accuracy estimates visually either through forest plots or ROC plots and the majority (n=40; 75 %) presented a test or statistical measure for the variability. Twenty-eight reviews (53 %) tested for variability beyond chance using Cochran’s Q test and 31 (58 %) reviews quantified it with I2. 7 reviews (13 %) presented between-study variance estimates (τ2) from random effects models and 3 of these presented a prediction interval or ellipse to facilitate interpretation. Half of all the meta-analyses specified what was considered a significant amount of variability (n=24; 49 %). Conclusions: Approaches to assessing variability in estimates of accuracy varied widely between diagnostic test accuracy reviews and there is room for improvement. We provide initial guidance, complemented by an overview of the currently available approaches.en_ZA
dc.description.urihttps://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-016-0108-4
dc.description.versionPublisher's version
dc.format.extent8 pages ; illustrations
dc.identifier.citationNaaktgeboren, C. A., et al. 2016. Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. Medical Research Methodology, 6:6, doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0108-4.
dc.identifier.issn1471-2288 (online)
dc.identifier.otherdoi:10.1186/s12874-016-0108-4
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/102025
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyright
dc.subjectDiagnostic techniques and proceduresen_ZA
dc.subjectDiagnosis -- Researchen_ZA
dc.subjectSystematic reviews (Medical research)en_ZA
dc.titleAssessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studiesen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
naaktgeboren_assessing_2016.pdf
Size:
493.9 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.95 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Research Articles (Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care)