Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.

Studies of diagnostic accuracy often report paired tests for sensitivity and specificity that can be pooled separately to produce summary estimates in a meta-analysis. This was done recently for a systematic review of radiographers' reporting accuracy of plain radiographs. The problem with pool...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Brealey, S., Hewitt, C., Scally, Andy J., Hahn, S., Godfrey, C., Thomas, N.
Language:en
Published: 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10454/6385
id ndltd-BRADFORD-oai-bradscholars.brad.ac.uk-10454-6385
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-BRADFORD-oai-bradscholars.brad.ac.uk-10454-63852019-08-31T03:03:18Z Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice. Brealey, S. Hewitt, C. Scally, Andy J. Hahn, S. Godfrey, C. Thomas, N. REF 2014; Sensitivity and specificity; Meta-analysis; Radiography; Diagnostic accuracy studies; Plain radiograph reporting; Clinical practice; Bivariate meta-analysis Studies of diagnostic accuracy often report paired tests for sensitivity and specificity that can be pooled separately to produce summary estimates in a meta-analysis. This was done recently for a systematic review of radiographers' reporting accuracy of plain radiographs. The problem with pooling sensitivities and specificities separately is that it does not acknowledge any possible (negative) correlation between these two measures. A possible cause of this negative correlation is that different thresholds are used in studies to define abnormal and normal radiographs because of implicit variations in thresholds that occur when radiographers' report plain radiographs. A method that allows for the correlation that can exist between pairs of sensitivity and specificity within a study using a random effects approach is the bivariate model. When estimates of accuracy as a fixed-effects model were pooled separately, radiographers' reported plain radiographs in clinical practice at 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92-93%) sensitivity and 98% (95% CI 98-98%) specificity. The bivariate model produced the same summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity but with wider confidence intervals (93% (95% CI 91-95%) and 98% (95% CI 96-98%), respectively) that take into account the heterogeneity beyond chance between studies. This method also allowed us to calculate a 95% confidence ellipse around the mean values of sensitivity and specificity and a 95% prediction ellipse for individual values of sensitivity and specificity. The bivariate model is an improvement on pooling sensitivity and specificity separately when there is a threshold effect, and it is the preferred method of choice. 2014-07-02T10:40:31Z 2014-07-02T10:40:31Z 2009 Article published version paper Brealey, S., Hewitt, C., Scally, A., Hahn, S., Godfrey, C. and Thomas, N. (2009) Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice. British Journal of Radiology 82 (979), 600-604. http://hdl.handle.net/10454/6385 en http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/11749530
collection NDLTD
language en
sources NDLTD
topic REF 2014;
Sensitivity and specificity;
Meta-analysis;
Radiography;
Diagnostic accuracy studies;
Plain radiograph reporting;
Clinical practice;
Bivariate meta-analysis
spellingShingle REF 2014;
Sensitivity and specificity;
Meta-analysis;
Radiography;
Diagnostic accuracy studies;
Plain radiograph reporting;
Clinical practice;
Bivariate meta-analysis
Brealey, S.
Hewitt, C.
Scally, Andy J.
Hahn, S.
Godfrey, C.
Thomas, N.
Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.
description Studies of diagnostic accuracy often report paired tests for sensitivity and specificity that can be pooled separately to produce summary estimates in a meta-analysis. This was done recently for a systematic review of radiographers' reporting accuracy of plain radiographs. The problem with pooling sensitivities and specificities separately is that it does not acknowledge any possible (negative) correlation between these two measures. A possible cause of this negative correlation is that different thresholds are used in studies to define abnormal and normal radiographs because of implicit variations in thresholds that occur when radiographers' report plain radiographs. A method that allows for the correlation that can exist between pairs of sensitivity and specificity within a study using a random effects approach is the bivariate model. When estimates of accuracy as a fixed-effects model were pooled separately, radiographers' reported plain radiographs in clinical practice at 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92-93%) sensitivity and 98% (95% CI 98-98%) specificity. The bivariate model produced the same summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity but with wider confidence intervals (93% (95% CI 91-95%) and 98% (95% CI 96-98%), respectively) that take into account the heterogeneity beyond chance between studies. This method also allowed us to calculate a 95% confidence ellipse around the mean values of sensitivity and specificity and a 95% prediction ellipse for individual values of sensitivity and specificity. The bivariate model is an improvement on pooling sensitivity and specificity separately when there is a threshold effect, and it is the preferred method of choice.
author Brealey, S.
Hewitt, C.
Scally, Andy J.
Hahn, S.
Godfrey, C.
Thomas, N.
author_facet Brealey, S.
Hewitt, C.
Scally, Andy J.
Hahn, S.
Godfrey, C.
Thomas, N.
author_sort Brealey, S.
title Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.
title_short Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.
title_full Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.
title_fullStr Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.
title_full_unstemmed Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.
title_sort bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.
publishDate 2014
url http://hdl.handle.net/10454/6385
work_keys_str_mv AT brealeys bivariatemetaanalysisofsensitivityandspecificityofradiographersplainradiographreportinginclinicalpractice
AT hewittc bivariatemetaanalysisofsensitivityandspecificityofradiographersplainradiographreportinginclinicalpractice
AT scallyandyj bivariatemetaanalysisofsensitivityandspecificityofradiographersplainradiographreportinginclinicalpractice
AT hahns bivariatemetaanalysisofsensitivityandspecificityofradiographersplainradiographreportinginclinicalpractice
AT godfreyc bivariatemetaanalysisofsensitivityandspecificityofradiographersplainradiographreportinginclinicalpractice
AT thomasn bivariatemetaanalysisofsensitivityandspecificityofradiographersplainradiographreportinginclinicalpractice
_version_ 1719240074960306176