Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25652323›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2015

Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies: an exploratory method for investigating the impact of missing thresholds.

Richard D Riley, Ikhlaaq Ahmed, Joie Ensor, Yemisi Takwoingi, Amanda Kirkham, R Katie Morris, J Pieter Noordzij, Jonathan J Deeks

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Richard D RileyResearch Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG UK.
Ikhlaaq AhmedMRC Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Public Health Building, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK.
Joie EnsorSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Public Health Building, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK.
Yemisi TakwoingiSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Public Health Building, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK.
Amanda KirkhamSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Public Health Building, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK.
R Katie MorrisResearch Section of Reproduction, Genes and Development; School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK ; Fetal Medicine Centre, Birmingham Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
J Pieter NoordzijDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University - School of Medicine, Boston, MA USA.
Jonathan J DeeksSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Public Health Building, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700526Medical Research Council G0800808Medical Research Council MR/J013595/1Medical Research Council MR/J013595/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary studies examining the accuracy of a continuous test evaluate its sensitivity and specificity at one or more thresholds. Meta-analysts then usually perform a separate meta-analysis for each threshold. However, the number of studies available for each threshold is often very different, as primary studies are inconsistent in the thresholds reported. Furthermore, of concern is selective reporting bias, because primary studies may be less likely to report a threshold when it gives low sensitivity and/or specificity estimates. This may lead to biased meta-analysis results. We developed an exploratory method to examine the potential impact of missing thresholds on conclusions from a test accuracy meta-analysis.

methodsOur method identifies studies that contain missing thresholds bounded between a pair of higher and lower thresholds for which results are available. The bounded missing threshold results (two-by-two tables) are then imputed, by assuming a linear relationship between threshold value and each of logit-sensitivity and logit-specificity. The imputed results are then added to the meta-analysis, to ascertain if original conclusions are robust. The method is evaluated through simulation, and application made to 13 studies evaluating protein:creatinine ratio (PCR) for detecting proteinuria in pregnancy with 23 different thresholds, ranging from one to seven per study.

resultsThe simulation shows the imputation method leads to meta-analysis estimates with smaller mean-square error. In the PCR application, it provides 50 additional results for meta-analysis and their inclusion produces lower test accuracy results than originally identified. For example, at a PCR threshold of 0.16, the summary specificity is 0.80 when using the original data, but 0.66 when also including the imputed data. At a PCR threshold of 0.25, the summary sensitivity is reduced from 0.95 to 0.85 when additionally including the imputed data.

conclusionsThe imputation method is a practical tool for researchers (often non-statisticians) to explore the potential impact of missing threshold results on their meta-analysis conclusions. Software is available to implement the method. In the PCR example, it revealed threshold results are vulnerable to the missing data, and so stimulates the need for advanced statistical models or, preferably, individual patient data from primary studies.

Indexed as

BiasClinical Laboratory TechniquesData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityDiagnostic testImputationMeta-analysisMissing dataMultiple thresholdsSensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID25652323
PMCPMC4417327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.