The impact of including different study designs in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies

Ref ID 234
First Author L. A. Parker
Journal EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10654-012-9756-9.pdf
Keywords Diagnostic
Heterogeneity
Problem(s) Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Number of systematic reviews included 30
Summary of Findings Of the 95 individual meta-analyses from 30 included systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy, meta-analyses with heterogeneous populations were over three times more likely to report good diagnostic accuracy compared to meta-analyses that included only clinically relevant patient series (adjusted odds ratio 3.07 95 % CI 1.16–8.11). Nearly half of the meta-analyses included heterogeneous study designs; and among those with homogeneous studies, 94 % included all clinically-relevant patient series, while 3 % included only studies with case–control designs.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Yes
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes