Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42057601›Full record

SynthesisEpidemiology and infection2026

A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Xanthoula Rousou, Luis Furuya-Kanamori, Polychronis Kostoulas, Suhail A R Doi, Eleftherios Meletis, Nikolaos Solomakos

Abstract readReviewComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Epidemiology and infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Xanthoula RousouPublic and One Health, https://ror.org/04v4g9h31University of Thessaly, School of Health Sciences, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8182-8819
Luis Furuya-Kanamorihttps://ror.org/00rqy9422The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Australia.
Polychronis KostoulasPublic and One Health, https://ror.org/04v4g9h31University of Thessaly, Greece.
Suhail A R DoiPopulation Medicine, https://ror.org/00yhnba62Qatar University College of Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
Eleftherios MeletisPublic and One Health, https://ror.org/04v4g9h31University of Thessaly, School of Health Sciences, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2862-7182
Nikolaos SolomakosVeterinary Medicine, https://ror.org/04v4g9h31University of Thessaly School of Health Sciences, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic test accuracy studies assess a diagnostic test's performance against a reference standard. In this review, we explore and compare statistical methods used in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Specifically, we evaluate two frequentist methods - split component synthesis (SCS) and bivariate model (BM) - alongside two Bayesian approaches: Bayesian hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (BHSROC) and Bayesian bivariate model (BBM). We also include their latent class variants (LC-BHSROC and LC-BBM). Using a meta-analysis of various multiplex nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs/PCRs) against

Indexed as

Campylobacter InfectionsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineMeta-Analysis as TopicBayes TheoremCampylobacterHumansModels, StatisticalSensitivity and SpecificityBayesian latent classbivariateCampylobacter sppsensitivityspecificitysplit component synthesis

Identifiers

PMID42057601
PMCPMC13184654

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.