Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature

Table 2 Measures of test accuracy reported in review of diagnostic literature (1994–2000)

	Time periods
Measures of test accuracy	1994–1997		1998–2000
	n	*% (95% confidence interval)* ⁺	n	*% (95% confidence interval* ⁺	p-value ^**
Included primary studies	50 ^*		40 ^*
Sensitivity or specificity	35	70 (55–82)	30^a	75 (59–87)	0.77
Predictive values	13^b	26 (15–40)	13^c	33 (19–49)	0.66
Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values	12	24 (13–38)	12	30 (17–47)	0.69
Likelihood ratios	9	18(9–31)	11	28 (15–44)	0.41
Diagnostic odds ratios	0	0 (0–7)	0	(0–9)	-
Meta-analysis	38 ^*	76(62–87)	22 ^*	55 (38–71)	0.16
Independently pooled sensitivity or specificity	22	58 (41–74)	13^d	62 (36–79)	0.86
Pooled predictive values	9^e	24(11–40)	2^f	10(1–29)	0.29
Pooled likelihood ratios	5	13 (4–28)	8	38 (17–59)	0.08
Pooled diagnostic odds ratios	5	13 (4–28)	0	0(0–15)	0.20
Summary ROC plot or values	23	61 (43–76)	11	52 (28–72)	0.60

^* numbers do not add up to totals because some reviews used more than one measures of accuracy; ^** chi sq. test with Yates' correction; ⁺ Exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval a includes study that only reported either sensitivity or specificity; b,c. includes study that only reported either positive or negative predictive value; d includes meta-analyses that only reported either pooled sensitivity or specificity; e,f. includes meta-analyses that only reported either pooled positive or negative predictive values

ISSN: 1472-6963