The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic and Screening Test Accuracy Evaluations: Methodologic Primer
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Interest in evidence-based diagnosis is growing rapidly as diagnostic and screening techniques proliferate. In this article we provide an overview of systematic reviews of diagnostic performance and discuss in detail statistical methods for the most common variant of the problem: meta-analysis of studies in which a pair of estimates of sensitivity and specificity is reported. The need to account for possible variations in threshold for test positivity across studies led to the formulation of the Summary ROC (SROC) curve method. We discuss graphical and model-based ways to estimate, summarize, and compare SROC curves, and we present an example from a meta-analysis of data on techniques for staging cervical cancer. We also present a brief survey of the methodologic literature for addressing heterogeneity, correlated data, multiple thresholds per study, and systematic reviews of ROC studies. We conclude with a discussion of the significant methodologic challenges that continue to face investigators in this area of diagnostic medicine research. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of diagnostic performance are a rigorous approach to examining and synthesizing evidence in the evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests. The information from such reviews is needed by clinicians, health policy makers, researchers in diagnostic medicine, developers of diagnostic techniques, and the general public. However, despite progress in study quality and reporting and in methodologic development, major challenges confront investigators undertaking these reviews.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Self-citationTowards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
Self-citationEmpirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & Lijmer, J. G. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1 · Cited by 1,124
Self-citationAssessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials:Current Issues and Future Directions
Moher, D., Jadad, A. R., & Tugwell, P. (1996) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462300009570 · Cited by 436
Obuchowski (2005) · doi:10.2214/ajr.184.2.01840364 · Cited by 321
Cited by
Hernaez, R., Lazo, M., Bonekamp, S., Kamel, I., Brancati, F. L., Guallar, E., & Clark, J. M. (2011) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.24452 · Cited by 1,585
Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Leeflang, M. M. G., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008 · Cited by 1,124
Self-citationmetandi: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression
Harbord, R. M., & Whiting, P. (2009) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0900900203 · Cited by 453
Robba, C., Santori, G., Czosnyka, M., Corradi, F., Bragazzi, N., Padayachy, L., Taccone, F. S., & Citerio, G. (2018) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5305-7 · Cited by 420
Yu, C.-W., Juan, L.-I., Wu, M.-H., Shen, C.-J., Wu, J.-Y., & Lee, C.-C. (2013) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.9008 · Cited by 351
Metadata
- Authors
- Gatsonis, C., & Paliwal, P.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 187
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 271-281
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W1969122657
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic and Screening Test Accuracy Evaluations: Methodologic Primer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.06.0226
- The paper
- Gatsonis, C., & Paliwal, P. (2006). Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic and Screening Test Accuracy Evaluations: Methodologic Primer. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.06.0226
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
