Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36443653›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Meta-DiSc 2.0: a web application for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data.

Maria N Plana, Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez, Silvia Fernández-García, Javier Soto, Martin Fabregate, Teresa Pérez, Marta Roqué, Javier Zamora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 23 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Diagnostic value of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Risk-stratification tools for emergency department patients with syncope: A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct evidence for SAEM GRACE.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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.

Maria N PlanaHealth Technology Assessment Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain. nieves.plana@salud.madrid.org.ORCID 0000-0003-0921-7954
Ingrid Arevalo-RodriguezCIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain.
Silvia Fernández-GarcíaClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain.
Javier SotoRadiology Department, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, IRYCIS, UPM, Madrid, Spain.
Martin FabregateInternal Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain.
Teresa PérezDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Marta RoquéCIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain.
Javier ZamoraCIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic evidence of the accuracy of a test for identifying a target condition of interest can be estimated using systematic approaches following standardized methodologies. Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are relatively complex, presenting a challenge for reviewers without extensive statistical expertise. In 2006, we developed Meta-DiSc, a free user-friendly software to perform test accuracy meta-analysis. This statistical program is now widely used for performing DTA meta-analyses. We aimed to build a new version of the Meta-DiSc software to include statistical methods based on hierarchical models and an enhanced web-based interface to improve user experience.

resultsIn this article, we present the updated version, Meta-DiSc 2.0, a web-based application developed using the R Shiny package. This new version implements recommended state-of-the-art statistical models to overcome the limitations of the statistical approaches included in the previous version. Meta-DiSc 2.0 performs statistical analyses of DTA reviews using a bivariate random effects model. The application offers a thorough analysis of heterogeneity, calculating logit variance estimates of sensitivity and specificity, the bivariate I-squared, the area of the 95% prediction ellipse, and the median odds ratios for sensitivity and specificity, and facilitating subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Furthermore, univariate random effects models can be applied to meta-analyses with few studies or with non-convergent bivariate models. The application interface has an intuitive design set out in four main menus: file upload; graphical description (forest and ROC plane plots); meta-analysis (pooling of sensitivity and specificity, estimation of likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio, sROC curve); and summary of findings (impact of test through downstream consequences in a hypothetical population with a given prevalence). All computational algorithms have been validated in several real datasets by comparing results obtained with STATA/SAS and MetaDTA packages.

conclusionWe have developed and validated an updated version of the Meta-DiSc software that is more accessible and statistically sound. The web application is freely available at www.metadisc.es .

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineMeta-Analysis as TopicSoftwareAlgorithmsHumansOdds RatioRecordsDiagnosisHeterogeneityMeta-analysisSensitivitySpecificitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36443653
PMCPMC9707040

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.