Diagnostic test accuracy: methods for systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Systematic reviews are carried out to provide an answer to a clinical question based on all available evidence (published and unpublished), to critically appraise the quality of studies, and account for and explain variations between the results of studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute specializes in providing methodological guidance for the conduct of systematic reviews and has developed methods and guidance for reviewers conducting systematic reviews of studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Diagnostic tests are used to identify the presence or absence of a condition for the purpose of developing an appropriate treatment plan. Owing to demands for improvements in speed, cost, ease of performance, patient safety, and accuracy, new diagnostic tests are continuously developed, and there are often several tests available for the diagnosis of a particular condition. In order to provide the evidence necessary for clinicians and other healthcare professionals to make informed decisions regarding the optimum test to use, primary studies need to be carried out on the accuracy of diagnostic tests and the results of these studies synthesized through systematic review. The Joanna Briggs Institute and its international collaboration have updated, revised, and developed new guidance for systematic reviews, including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. This methodological article summarizes that guidance and provides detailed advice on the effective conduct of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Cites
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 · Cited by 21,856 · see citing works
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648 · see citing works
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199 · see citing works
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.12 · Cited by 6,793 · see citing works
Basic principles of ROC analysis
Metz, C. E. (1978) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0001-2998(78)80014-2 · Cited by 6,058 · see citing works
Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models
Zou, K. H., O’Malley, A. J., & Mauri, L. (2007) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.594929 · Cited by 1,473 · see citing works
Moses, L. E., Shapiro, D. E., & Littenberg, B. (1993) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780121403 · Cited by 1,405 · see citing works
Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests
Deeks, J. J. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7305.157 · Cited by 1,345 · see citing works
Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity
Lalkhen, A. G., & McCluskey, A. (2008) · Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain · doi:10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkn041 · Cited by 942 · see citing works
Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests
(2001) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 850 · see citing works
Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: The architecture of diagnostic research
Sackett, D. L. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7336.539 · Cited by 724 · see citing works
Chu, H., & Cole, S. R. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.011 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
Dinnes, J., Deeks, J. J., Kirby, J., & Roderick, P. J. (2005) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta9120 · Cited by 440 · see citing works
Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy from Multiple Conflicting Reports
Littenberg, B., & Moses, L. E. (1993) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9301300408 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy
Leeflang, M. (2013) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12474 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews
Leeflang, M., Deeks, J. J., Takwoingi, Y., & Macaskill, P. (2013) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-82 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Harbord, R. M., Whiting, P. F., Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., Deeks, J. J., Shang, A., & Bachmann, L. M. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.09.013 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Gopalakrishna, G., Mustafa, R. A., Davenport, C. F., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Hyde, C., Brożek, J., Schünemann, H. J., Bossuyt, P. M., Leeflang, M., & Langendam, M. W. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.006 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE
Beynon, R., Leeflang, M., McDonald, S. J., Eisinga, A., Mitchell, R. L., Whiting, P. F., & Glanville, J. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000022.pub3 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Analysis of Data on the Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests
Habbema, J. D. F., Eijkemans, R., Krijnen, P., et al. (2008) · doi:10.1002/9781444300574.ch7 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Holling, H., Böhning, W., & Böhning, D. (2012) · Statistical Modelling · doi:10.1177/1471082x1201200403 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Latent class bivariate model for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies
Eusebi, P., Reitsma, J. B., & Vermunt, J. K. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-88 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Synthesizing Evidence of Diagnostic Accuracy
White, S., Schultz, T., & Enuameh, Y. (2011) · Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-citationTan, M., & Lang, D. S. P. (2015) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2013 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Do We Need a Checklist for Reporting the Results of Diagnostic Test Evaluations?
Gatsonis, C. (2003) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80076-4 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · Cited by 1,164 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Campbell, J. M., Klugar, M., Ding, S., Carmody, D. P., Hakonsen, S. J., Jadotte, Y. T., White, S., & Munn, Z.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Palacký University Olomouc (CZ)
- Flinders University (AU)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Jared M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 154-162
- ISSN
- 1744-1595 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-1609
- OpenAlex
- W2419280680
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 6.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- vbn.aau.dk
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
- VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- diagnostic accuracy, systematic review methodology, Joanna Briggs Institute, meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy, evidence synthesis
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, False Negative Reactions, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Research Design, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Evidence-Based Medicine, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures, Empirical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
