Individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnostic studies: opportunities and challenges

Individual patient data meta-analyses using the raw data from primary diagnostic accuracy studies are taking hold in systematic reviews evaluating tests. Conventional reviews and meta-analyses that summarise study-level data on test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) have several disadvantages. The most fundamental limitation of this approach is that it estimates the rates of test result-given disease (sensitivity is probability of positive test result-given disease is present; and specificity is probability of negative test result-given disease is absent). This may be addressed by summarising predictive values, but estimating accuracy for individual tests without consideration of other tests in the test chains that make up everyday diagnostic work-ups remain a problem. To inform clinical practice it is essential that test evaluation generates information about probability of disease given test results, and that it does so in view of the preceding contribution to diagnosis of other tests, for example, symptoms and signs. A multivariable (logistic regression) framework generates disease probabilities taking into account the important factors that play a role in diagnosis. Most primary accuracy studies lack statistical power to do this, particularly because of the small absolute number of disease events per test included in the diagnostic work. Synthesis using their raw data can overcome this problem, but meta-analysts will have limited success if there are difficulties in obtaining the large majority of valid studies, without ‘missing’ data on the tests relevant in clinical decision-making. Successful individual patient data meta-analyses create the opportunity to calculate directly and reliably disease probabilities corresponding with realistic chains of tests, thereby making outputs of reviews of test accuracy clinically applicable.

[1]  Lucas M Bachmann,et al.  Systematic reviews with individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate diagnostic tests. , 2003, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[2]  R B D'Agostino,et al.  A predictive instrument to improve coronary-care-unit admission practices in acute ischemic heart disease. A prospective multicenter clinical trial. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  L. Stewart,et al.  Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context: Second Edition , 2008 .

[5]  R. Riley,et al.  Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  M. Parmar,et al.  Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? , 1993, The Lancet.

[7]  Yemisi Takwoingi,et al.  Empirical Evidence of the Importance of Comparative Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  F. Harrell,et al.  Regression models in clinical studies: determining relationships between predictors and response. , 1988, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  K. Khan,et al.  Probability analysis for diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in postmenopausal bleeding: an approach for a rational diagnostic workup , 2003, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[10]  Lucas M Bachmann,et al.  Individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic studies in obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive medicine , 2009, BMC medical research methodology.

[11]  L. Stewart,et al.  Meta-analyses using individual patient data. , 1997, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[12]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Why do single event probabilities confuse patients? , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  What are natural frequencies? , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Individual participant data meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies: state of the art? , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[15]  T. J. Fagan,et al.  Nomogram for Bayes's theorem , 1975 .

[16]  Sheena Wilson,et al.  How should we investigate women with postmenopausal bleeding? , 1996, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[17]  A P Dawid,et al.  Properties of diagnostic data distributions. , 1976, Biometrics.

[18]  J. Yerushalmy Statistical problems in assessing methods of medical diagnosis, with special reference to X-ray techniques. , 1947, Public health reports.

[19]  O. Miettinen,et al.  Evaluation of diagnostic imaging tests: diagnostic probability estimation. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  P. Chien,et al.  Ultrasonographic endometrial thickness for diagnosing endometrial pathology in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a meta‐analysis , 2002, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[21]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Obtaining Individual Patient Data from Randomised Controlled Trials , 2008 .

[22]  Lucas M Bachmann,et al.  Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  T Justin Clark,et al.  Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: a systematic quantitative review. , 2002, JAMA.

[24]  J. Habbema,et al.  Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  R S LEDLEY,et al.  Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis; symbolic logic, probability, and value theory aid our understanding of how physicians reason. , 1959, Science.

[26]  Fagan Tj Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. , 1975 .

[27]  J. Knottnerus,et al.  Coronary heart disease in primary care: accuracy of medical history and physical findings in patients with chest pain – a study protocol for a systematic review with individual patient data , 2012, BMC Family Practice.

[28]  G. ter Riet,et al.  Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  K. Barnhart,et al.  The prognostic profile of subfertile couples and treatment outcome after expectant management, intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilisation: a study protocol for the meta‐analysis of individual patient data , 2012, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[30]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Bivariate meta-analysis of predictive values of diagnostic tests can be an alternative to bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  L. Dwarakanath,et al.  The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound scan in predicting endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in postmenopausal bleeding , 1999, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[32]  O. Miettinen,et al.  Foundations of medical diagnosis: what actually are the parameters involved in Bayes' theorem? , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[33]  G. Riet,et al.  Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests , 2001, British medical journal.

[34]  K. Khan,et al.  Evaluation of Outpatient Hysteroscopy and Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Endometrial Disease , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.