SynthesisBMJ open2021
Novel approach to meta-analysis of tests and clinical prediction rules with three or more risk categories.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessment of performance of stratum-specific likelihood ratios of the aldosteronoma resolution score for predicting hypertension cure after adrenalectomy for primary aldosteronism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Pooled it
- Predicting neurological outcome in adult patients with cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMultichotomous tests have three or more outcome or risk categories, and can provide richer information and a better fit with clinical decision-making than dichotomous tests. Our objective is to present a fully developed approach to the meta-analysis of multichotomous clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and tests, including meta-analysis of stratum specific likelihood ratios. STUDY
designWe have developed a novel approach to the meta-analysis of likelihood ratios for multichotomous tests that avoids the need to dichotomise outcome categories, and demonstrate its application to a sample CPR. We also review previously reported approaches to the meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) and meta-analysis of a measure of calibration (observed:expected) for multichotomous tests or CPRs.
resultsUsing data from 10 studies of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk score for prostate cancer recurrence, we calculated summary estimates of the likelihood ratios for low, moderate and high risk groups of 0.40 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.49), 1.24 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.55) and 4.47 (95% CI 3.21 to 6.23), respectively. Applying the summary estimates of the likelihood ratios for each risk group to the overall prevalence of cancer recurrence in a population allows one to estimate the likelihood of recurrence for each risk group in that population.
conclusionAn approach to meta-analysis of multichotomous tests or CPRs is presented. A spreadsheet for data preparation and code for R and Stata are provided for other researchers to download and use. Combined with summary estimates of the AUROCC and calibration, this is a comprehensive strategy for meta-analysis of multichotomous tests and CPRs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.