This is a chapter from AHRQ's Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews.
Abstract
Synthesizing information on test performance metrics, such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios, is often an important part of a systematic review of a medical test. Because many metrics of test performance are of interest, the metaanalysis of medical tests is more complex than the metaanalysis of interventions or associations. Sometimes, a helpful way to summarize medical test studies is to provide a "summary point," a summary sensitivity and a summary specificity. Other times, when the sensitivity or specificity estimates vary widely or when the test threshold varies, it is more helpful to synthesize data using a "summary line" that describes how the average sensitivity changes with the average specificity. The choice of the most helpful summary is subjective, and in some cases both summaries provide meaningful and complementary information. Because sensitivity and specificity are not independent across studies, the metaanalysis of medical tests is fundamentally a multivariate problem, and should be addressed with multivariate methods. More complex analyses are needed if studies report results at multiple thresholds for positive tests. At the same time, quantitative analyses are used to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies. This can be performed in the context of proper (multivariate) metaregressions.
Introduction
The Methods Guide to Medical Test Reviews (also referred to as the Medical Test Methods Guide) highlights common challenges in systematic reviews of medical tests and outlines their mitigation, as perceived by researchers partaking in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Healthcare Program.^{1} Generic by their very nature, these challenges and their discussion apply to the larger set of systematic reviews of medical tests, and are not specific to AHRQ's program.
This chapter of the Medical Test Methods Guide focuses on choosing strategies for metaanalysis of test “accuracy,” or more preferably, test performance. Metaanalysis is not required for a systematic review, but when appropriate, it should be undertaken with a dual goal: to provide summary estimates for key quantities, and to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies.
"Summingup" information on test performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values is rarely the most informative part of a systematic review of a medical test.^{2–5} Key clinical questions driving the evidence synthesis (e.g., "Is this test alone or in combination with a testandtreat strategy likely to improve decisionmaking and patient outcomes?") are only indirectly related to test performance per se. Formulating an effective evaluation approach requires careful consideration of the context in which the test will be used. These framing issues are addressed in other chapters of this Medical Test Methods Guide.^{6–8} Further, in this chapter we assume that medical test performance has been measured against a “gold standard,” that is, a reference standard considered adequate to define the presence or absence of the condition of interest. Another chapter discusses ways to summarize medical tests when such a reference standard does not exist.^{9}
Syntheses of medical test data often focus on test performance, and much of the attention to statistical issues relevant to synthesizing medical test evidence focuses on summarizing test performance data; thus their metaanalysis was chosen to be the focus of this paper. We will assume that the decision to perform metaanalyses of test performance data is justified and taken, and will explore two central challenges; namely, how do we quantitatively summarize medical test performance when: (1) the sensitivity and specificity estimates of various studies do not vary widely, or (2) the sensitivity and specificity of various studies vary over a large range.
Briefly, in the first situation, it may be helpful to use a “summary point” (a summary sensitivity and summary specificity pair) to obtain summary test performance when sensitivity and specificity estimates do not vary widely across studies. This could happen in metaanalyses where all studies have the same explicit test positivity threshold (a threshold for categorizing the results of testing as positive or negative), since if studies have different explicit thresholds, the clinical interpretation of a summary point is less obvious, and perhaps less helpful. However, an explicit common threshold is neither sufficient nor necessary for opting to synthesize data with a “summary point”; a summary point can be appropriate whenever sensitivity and specificity estimates do not vary widely across studies.
In the second type of situation, when the sensitivity and specificity of various studies vary over a large range, rather than using a “summary point” it may be more helpful to describe how the average sensitivity and average specificity relate by means of a “summary line.” This oftencountered situation can be secondary to explicit or implicit variation in the threshold for a “positive” test result; heterogeneity in populations, reference standards, or the index tests; variation in study design; chance; or bias.
Of note, in many applications it may be informative to present syntheses in both ways, as the two modes convey complementary information.
Deciding whether a “summary point” or a “summary line” is more helpful as a synthesis is subjective, and no hardandfast rules exist. We briefly outline common approaches for metaanalyzing medical tests, and discuss principles for choosing between them. However, a detailed presentation of methods or their practical application is outside the scope of this work. In addition, it is expected that readers are versed in clinical research methodology and familiar with methodological issues pertinent to the study of medical tests. We also assume familiarity with the common measures of medical test performance (reviewed in the Appendix, and in excellent introductory papers^{10}). For example, we do not review challenges posed by methodological or reporting shortcomings of test performance studies.^{11} The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) initiative published a 25item checklist that aims to improve reporting of medical tests studies.^{11} We refer readers to other papers in this issue^{12} and to several methodological and empirical explorations of bias and heterogeneity in medical test studies.^{13–15}
Nonindependence of Sensitivity and Specificity Across Studies and Why It Matters for MetaAnalysis
In a typical metaanalysis of test performance, we have estimates of sensitivity and specificity for each study, and seek to provide a meaningful summary across all studies. Within each study, sensitivity and specificity are independent, because they are estimated from different patients (sensitivity from those with the condition of interest, and specificity from those without). According to the prevailing reasoning, across studies sensitivity and specificity are likely negatively correlated: as one estimate increases the other is expected to decrease. This is perhaps more obvious when studies have different explicit thresholds for “positive” tests; and thus the term “threshold effect” has been used to describe this negative correlation. For example, the Ddimer concentration threshold for diagnosing an acute coronary event can vary from approximately 200 to over 600 ng/mL.^{16} It is expected that higher thresholds would correspond to generally lower sensitivity but higher specificity, and the opposite for lower thresholds (though in this example it is not clearly evident; see Figure 8–1, especially Figure 8–1a). A similar rationale can be invoked to explain betweenstudy variability for tests with more implicit or suggestive thresholds, such as imaging or histological tests.
Negative correlation between sensitivity and specificity across studies may be expected for reasons unrelated to thresholds for positive tests. For example, in a metaanalysis evaluating the ability of serial creatine kinaseMB (CKMB) measurements to diagnose acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department,^{17,18} the time interval from the onset of symptoms to serial CKMB measurements (rather than the actual threshold for CKMB) could explain the relationship between sensitivity and specificity across studies. The larger the time interval, the more CKMB is released into the bloodstream, affecting the estimated sensitivity and specificity. Unfortunately, the term “threshold effect” is often used rather loosely to describe the relationship between sensitivity and specificity across studies, even when, strictly speaking, there is no direct evidence of variability in study thresholds for positive tests.
Because of the above, the current thinking is that, in general, the study estimates of sensitivity and specificity do not vary independently, but jointly, and likely with a negative correlation. Summarizing the two correlated quantities is a multivariate problem, and multivariate methods should be used to address it, as they are more theoretically motivated.^{19,20} At the same time there are situations when a multivariate approach is not practically different from separate univariate analyses. We will expand on some of these issues.
Figure 8–1a. Typical data on the performance of a medical test (Ddimers for venous thromboembolism)
Figure 8–1a depicts studies as markers, labeled by author names and thresholds for a positive test (in ng/mL). Studies listed on the left lightly shaded area have a positive likelihood ratio of at least 10. Studies listed on the top lightly shaded area have a negative likelihood ratio of at most 0.1. Studies listed at the intersection of the gray areas (darker gray polygon) have both a positive likelihood ratio of at least 10 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.1 or less.
Figure 8–1b. Typical data on the performance of a medical test (Ddimers for venous thromboembolism)
Eleven studies on ELISAbased Ddimer assays for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.^{16}
Figure 8–1b shows “paired” forest plots in ascending order of sensitivity (left) along with the corresponding specificity (right). Note how sensitivity increases with decreasing specificity, which could be explained by a “threshold effect.”
Figure 8–1c. Typical data on the performance of a medical test (Ddimers for venous thromboembolism)
Eleven studies on ELISAbased Ddimer assays for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.^{16}
Figure 8–1c shows the respective negative and positive likelihood ratios.
Principles for Addressing the Challenges
To motivate our suggestions on metaanalyses of medical tests, we invoke two general principles:
 Principle 1: Favor the most informative way to summarize the data. Here we refer mainly to choosing between a summary point and a summary line, or choosing to use both.
 Principle 2: Explore the variability in study results with graphs and suitable analyses, rather than relying exclusively on “grand means.”
Recommended Approaches
Which Metrics to MetaAnalyze
For each study, the estimates of sensitivity, specificity, predicitive values, likelihood ratios, and prevalence are related through simple formulas (Appendix). However, if one performs a metaanalysis for each of these metrics, the summaries across all studies will generally be inconsistent: the formulas will not be satisfied for the summary estimates. To avoid this, we propose to obtain summaries for sensitivities and specificities via metaanalysis, and to backcalculate the overall predictive values or likelihood ratios from the formulas in the Appendix, for a range of plausible prevalences. Figure 8–2 illustrates this strategy for a metaanalysis of K studies. We explain the rationale below.
Why does it make sense to directly metaanalyze sensitivity and specificity?
Summarizing studies with respect to sensitivity and specificity aligns well with our understanding of the effect of positivity thresholds for diagnostic tests. Further, sensitivity and specificity are often considered independent of the prevalence of the condition under study (though this is an oversimplification that merits deeper discussion^{21}). The summary sensitivity and specificity obtained by a direct metaanalysis will always be between zero and one. Because these two metrics do not have as intuitive an interpretation as likelihood ratios or predictive values,^{10} we can use formulas in the Appendix to backcalculate “summary” (overall) predictive values and likelihood ratios that correspond to the summary sensitivity and specificity for a range of plausible prevalence values.
Why does it not make sense to directly metaanalyze positive and negative predictive values or prevalence?
Predictive values are dependent on prevalence estimates. Because prevalence is often wide ranging, and because many medical test studies have a casecontrol design (where prevalence cannot be estimated), it is rarely meaningful to directly combine these across studies. Instead, predictive values can be calculated as mentioned above from the summary sensitivity and specificity for a range of plausible prevalence values.
Figure 8–2. Obtaining summary (overall) metrics for medical test performance
PLR/NLR = positive (negative) likelihood ratio; PPV/NPV = positive (negative) predictive value; Prev = prevalence;
Se = Sensitivity; Sp = specificity
The herein recommended approach is to perform a metaanalysis for sensitivity and specificity across the K studies, and then use the summary sensitivity and specificity (Se+ and Sp+; a row of two boxes after the horizontal black line) to backcalculate “overall” values for the other metrics (second row of boxes after the horizontal black line). In most cases it is not meaningful to synthesize prevalences (see text).
Why could directly metaanalyzing likelihood ratios be problematic?
Positive and negative likelihood ratios could also be combined in the absence of threshold variation, and in fact, many authors give explicit guidance to that effect.^{22} However, this practice does not guarantee that the summary positive and negative likelihood ratios are internally consistent. Specifically, it is possible to get summary likelihood ratios that correspond to impossible summary sensitivities or specificities (outside the zero to one interval).^{23} Backcalculating the summary likelihood ratios from summary sensitivities and specificities avoids this complication. Nevertheless, these aberrant cases are not common,^{24} and calculations of summary likelihood ratios by directly metaanalyzing them or from back calculation of the summary sensitivity and specificity rarely results in different conclusions.^{24}
What should be said about directly metaanalyzing diagnostic odds ratios?
The synthesis of diagnostic odds ratios is straightforward and follows standard metaanalysis methods.^{25,26} The diagnostic odds ratio is closely linked to sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios, and it can be easily included in metaregression models to explore the impact of explanatory variables on betweenstudy heterogeneity. Apart from challenges in interpreting diagnostic odds ratios, a disadvantage is that it is impossible to weight the true positive and false positive rates separately.
Desired Characteristics of MetaAnalysis Methods
Over several decades many methods have been used for metaanalyzing medical test performance data. Based on the above considerations, methods should be motivated by (1) respecting the multivariate nature of test performance metrics (i.e., sensitivity and specificity); (2) allowing for the nonindependence between sensitivity and specificity across studies (“threshold effect”) and (3) allowing for betweenstudy heterogeneity. Table 8–1 lists commonly used methods for metaanalysis of medical tests. The most theoretically motivated metaanalysis approaches are based on multivariate methods (hierarchical modeling).
Method  Description or Comment  Does it have Desired Characteristics? 

HSROC = hierarchical summary ROC; ROC = receiver operating characteristic  
Summary Point  
Independent metaanalysis of sensitivity and specificity 


Joint (multivariate) metaanalysis of sensitivity and specificity based on hierarchical modeling 


Summary Line  
Moses and Littenberg model 


Random intercept augmentation of the MosesLittenberg model 


Summary ROC based on hierarchical modeling 


We will focus on the case where each study reports a single pair of sensitivity and specificity at a given threshold (although thresholds can differ across studies). Another, more complex situation arises when multiple sensitivity and specificity pairs (at different thresholds) are reported in each study. Statistical models for the latter case exist, but there is less empirical evidence on their use. These will be described briefly, as a special case.
Preferred Methods for Obtaining a “Summary Point” (Summary Sensitivity and Specificity): Two Families of Hierarchical Models
When a “summary point” is deemed a helpful summary of a collection of studies, one should ideally perform a multivariate metaanalysis of sensitivity and specificity, i.e., a joint analysis of both quantities, rather than separate univariate metaanalyses. This is not only theoretically motivated,^{27–29} but also corroborated by simulation analyses as well.^{2,28,30}
Multivariate metaanalyses require advanced hierarchical modeling. We can group the commonly used hierarchical models in two families: The socalled “bivariate model”^{27} and the “hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic ” (HSROC) model.^{31} Both use two levels to model the statistical distributions of data. At the first level, they model the counts of the 2×2 table within each study, which accounts for withinstudy variability. At the second level, they model the betweenstudy variability (heterogeneity), allowing for the theoretically expected nonindependence of sensitivity and specificity across studies. The two families differ in their parameterization at this second level: the bivariate model uses parameters that are transformations of the average sensitivity and specificity, while the HSROC model uses a scale parameter and an accuracy parameter, which are functions of sensitivity and specificity and define an underlying hierarchical summary ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve.
In the absence of covariates, the two families of hierarchical models are mathematically equivalent; one can use simple formulas to relate the fitted parameters of the bivariate model to the HSROC model and vice versa, rendering choices between the two approaches moot.^{19} The importance of choosing between the two families becomes evident in metaregression analyses, when covariates are used to explore betweenstudy heterogeneity. The differences in design and conduct of the included diagnostic accuracy studies may affect the choice of the model.^{19} For example, “spectrum effects,” where the subjects included in a study are not representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice,^{32} “might be expected to impact test accuracy rather than the threshold, and might therefore be most appropriately investigated using the HSROC approach. Conversely, betweenstudy variation in disease severity will (likely) affect sensitivity but not specificity, leading to a preference for the bivariate approach.”^{19} When there are covariates in the model, the HSROC model allows direct evaluation of the difference in accuracy or threshold parameters or both. The accuracy parameter affects how much higher the summary line is from the diagonal (the line of no diagnostic information), and the threshold parameter affects the degree of asymmetry of the HSROC curve.^{19} Bivariate models, on the other hand, allow for direct evaluation of covariates on sensitivity or specificity or both. Systematic reviewers are encouraged to look at study characteristics and think through how study characteristics could affect the diagnostic accuracy, which in turn might affect the choice of the metaregression model.
Preferred Methods for Obtaining a “Summary Line”
When a summary line is deemed more helpful in summarizing the available studies, we recommend summary lines obtained from hierarchical modeling, instead of several simpler approaches (8–1).^{33–37} As mentioned above, when there are no covariates, the parameters of hierarchical summary lines can be calculated from the parameters of the bivariate random effects models using formulas.^{19,31,38} In fact, a whole range of HSROC lines can be constructed using parameters from the fitted bivariate model;^{38,39} one proposed by Rutter and Gatsonis^{31} is an example. The various HSROC curves represent alternative characterizations of the bivariate distribution of sensitivity and specificity, and can thus have different shapes. Briefly, apart from the commonly used RutterGatsonis HSROC curve, alternative curves include those obtained from a regression of logittransformed true positive rate on logittransformed false positive rate; logit false positive rate on logit true positive rate; or the major axis regression between logit true and false positive rates.^{38,39}
When the estimated correlation between sensitivity and specificity is positive (as opposed to the typical negative correlation), the latter three alternative models can generate curves that follow a downward slope from left to right. This is not as rare as once thought^{38}—a downward slope (from left to right) was observed in approximately one out of three metaanalyses in a large empirical exploration of 308 metaanalyses.^{40} Chappell et al. argued that in metaanalyses with evidence of positive estimated correlation between sensitivity and specificity (e.g., based on the correlation estimate and confidence interval or its posterior distribution) it is meaningless to use an HSROC line to summarize the studies,^{39} as a “threshold effect” explanation is not possible. Yet, even if the estimated correlation between sensitivity and specificity is positive (i.e., not in the “expected” direction), an HSROC still represents how the summary sensitivity changes with the summary specificity. The difference is that the explanation for the pattern of the studies cannot involve a “threshold effect”; rather, it is likely that an important covariate has not been included in the analysis (see the proposed algorithm below).^{39}
A Special Case: Joint Analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity When Studies Report Multiple Thresholds
It is not uncommon for some studies to report multiple sensitivity and specificity pairs at several thresholds for positive tests. One option is to decide on a single threshold from each study and apply the aforementioned methods. To some extent, the setting in which the test is used can guide the selection of the threshold. For example, in some cases, the threshold which gives the highest sensitivity may be appropriate in medical tests to rule out disease. Another option is to use all available thresholds per study. Specifically, Dukic and Gatsonis extended the HSROC model to analyze sensitivity and specificity data reported at more than one threshold.^{41} This model represents an extension of the HSROC model discussed above. Further, if each study reports enough data on sensitivity and specificity to construct a ROC curve, Kester and Buntinx^{42} proposed a littleused method to combine whole ROC curves.
Both models are theoretically motivated. The Dukic and Gatsonis model is more elaborate and more technical in its implementation than the Kester and Buntinx variant. There is no empirical evidence on the performance of either model in a large number of applied examples. Therefore, we refrain from providing a strong recommendation to always perform such analyses. Systematic reviewers are mildly encouraged to perform explorations, including analyses with these models. Should they opt to do so, they should provide adequate description of the employed models and their assumptions, as well as a clear intuitive interpretation of the parameters of interest in the models. At a minimum, we suggest that systematic reviewers perform explorations in a qualitative, graphical depiction of the data in the ROC space (see the Algorithm section). This will provide a qualitative summary and will highlight similarities and differences among the studies. An example of such a graph is Figure 8–3, which illustrates the diagnostic performance of early measurements of total serum bilirubin (TSB) to identify postdischarge TSB above the 95th hourspecific percentile in newborns.^{43}
Figure 8–3. Graphical presentation of studies reporting data at multiple thresholds
Ability of early total serum bilirubin measurements to identify postdischarge total serum bilirubin above the 95th hourspecific percentile. Sensitivity and 100 percent minus specificity pairs from the same study (obtained with different cutoffs for the early total serum bilirubin measurement) are connected with lines. These lines are reconstructed based on the reported cutoffs, and are not perfect representations of the actual ROC curves in each study (they show only a few thresholds that could be extracted from the study). Studies listed on the left lightly shaded area have a positive likelihood ratio of at least 10. Studies listed on the top lightly shaded area have a negative likelihood ratio of at most 0.1. Studies listed at the intersection of the gray areas (darker gray polygon) have both a positive likelihood ratio of at least 10 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.1 or less.^{43}
A Workable Algorithm
We propose using the following threestep algorithm for metaanalyzing studies of medical test performance when there is a “gold standard.” This algorithm should assist metaanalysts in deciding whether a summary point, a summary line, or both are helpful syntheses of the data. When reviewing the three step algorithm, keep these points in mind:
 A summary point may be less helpful or interpretable when the studies have different explicit thresholds for positive tests, and when the estimates of sensitivity vary widely along different specificities. In such cases, a summary line may be more informative.
 A summary line may not be well estimated when the sensitivities and specificities of the various studies show little variability or when their estimated correlation across studies is small. Further, if there is evidence that the estimated correlation of sensitivity and specificity across studies is positive (rather than negative, which would be more typical), a “threshold effect” is not a plausible explanation for the observed pattern across studies. Rather, it is likely that an important covariate has not been taken into account.
 In many applications, a reasonable case can be made for summarizing studies with both a summary point and a summary line, as these provide alternative perspectives.
Step 1: Start by considering sensitivity and specificity independently.
This step is probably selfexplanatory; it encourages reviewers to familiarize themselves with the pattern of studylevel sensitivities and specificities. It is very instructive to create sidebyside forest plots of sensitivity and specificity in which studies are ordered by either sensitivity or specificity. The point of this graphical assessment is to obtain a visual impression of the variability of sensitivity and specificity across studies, as well as an impression of any relationship between sensitivity and specificity across studies, particularly if such a relationship is prominent (Figure 8–1 and illustrative examples).
If a summary point is deemed a helpful summary of the data, it is reasonable first to perform separate metaanalyses of sensitivity and specificity. The differences in the point estimates of summary sensitivity and specificity with univariate (separate) versus bivariate (joint) metaanalyses is often small. In an empirical exploration of 308 metaanalyses, differences in the estimates of summary sensitivity and specificity were rarely larger than 5 percent.^{40} The width of the confidence intervals for the summary sensitivity and specificity is also similar between univariate and bivariate analyses. This suggests that, practically, univariate and multivariate analyses may yield comparable results. However, our recommendation is to prefer reporting the results from the hierarchical (multivariate) metaanalysis methods because of their better theoretical motivation and because of their natural symmetry with the multivariate methods that yield summary lines.
Step 2: Perform multivariate metaanalysis (when each study reports a single threshold).
To obtain a summary point, metaanalysts should perform bivariate metaanalyses (preferably using the exact binomial likelihood).
Metaanalysts should obtain summary lines based on multivariate metaanalysis models. The interpretation of the summary line should not automatically be that there are “threshold effects.” This is most obvious when performing metaanalyses with evidence of a positive correlation between sensitivity and specificity, which cannot be attributed to a “threshold effect,” as mentioned above.
If more than one threshold is reported per study and there is no strong a priori rationale to review only results for a specific threshold, metaanalysts should consider incorporating alternative thresholds into the appropriate analyses discussed previously. Tentatively, we encourage both qualitative analysis via graphs and quantitative analyses via one of the multivariate methods mentioned above.
Step 3. Explore betweenstudy heterogeneity.
Other than accounting for the presence of a “threshold effect,” the HSROC and bivariate models provide flexible ways to test and explore betweenstudy heterogeneity. The HSROC model allows one to examine whether any covariates (study characteristics) explain the observed heterogeneity in the accuracy and threshold parameters. One can use the same set of covariates for both parameters, but this is not mandatory, and should be judged for the application at hand. On the other hand, bivariate models allow one to use covariates to explain heterogeneity in sensitivity or specificity or both; and again, covariates for each measure can be different. Covariates that reduce the unexplained variability across studies (heterogeneity) may represent important characteristics that should be taken into account when summarizing the studies, or they may represent spurious associations.We refer to other texts for a discussion of the premises and pitfalls of metaregressions.^{25,44} Factors reflecting differences in patient populations and methods of patient selection, methods of verification and interpretation of results, clinical setting, and disease severity are common sources of heterogeneity. Investigators are encouraged to use multivariate models to explore heterogeneity, especially when they have chosen these methods for combining studies.
Illustrations
We briefly demonstrate the above with two applied examples. The first example on Ddimer assays for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism^{16} shows heterogeneity which could be attributed to a “threshold effect” as discussed by Lijmer et al.^{45} The second example is from an evidence report on the use of serial creatine kinaseMB measurements for the diagnosis of acute cardiac ischemia,^{17;18} and shows heterogeneity for another reason.
First Example: Ddimers for Diagnosis of Venous Thromboembolism
Ddimers are fragments specific for fibrin degradation in plasma, and can be used to diagnose venous thromboembolism. Figure 8–1 presents forest plots of the sensitivity and specificity and the likelihood ratios for the Ddimer example.^{45} Sensitivity and specificity appear more heterogeneous than the likelihood ratios. (This is verified by formal testing for heterogeneity). This may be due to threshold variation in these studies (from 120 to 550 ng/mL, when stated; Figure 8–1), or due to other reasons.^{45}
Because of the explicit variation in the thresholds for studies of Ddimers, it is probably more helpful to summarize the performance of the test using a HSROC, rather than to provide summary sensitivities and specificities (Figure 8–4a). (For simplicity, we select the highest threshold from two studies that report multiple ELISA [enzymelinked immunosorbent assay] thresholds.) This test has very good diagnostic ability, and it appropriately focuses on minimizing false negative diagnoses. It is also informative to estimate “summary” negative (or positive) predictive values for this test. As described previously, we can calulate them based on the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates and over a range of plausible values for the prevalence. Figure 8–4b shows such an example using the summary sensitivity and specificity of the 11 studies of Figure 8–4a.
Figure 8–4. HSROC for the ELISAbased Ddimer tests
(a) Hierarchical summary receiveroperator curve (HSROC) of the studies plotted in Figure 8–1a.
(b) Calculated negative predictive value for the ELISAbased Ddimer test if the sensitivity and specificity are fixed at 80% and 97%, respectively, and prevalence of venous thromboembolism varies from 5 to 50 percent.
Second Example: Serial Creatine KinaseMB Measurements for Diagnosing Acute Cardiac Ischemia
An evidence report examined the ability of serial creatine kinaseMB (CKMB) measurements to diagnose acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department.^{17,18} Figure 8–5 shows the 14 eligible studies along with how many hours after symptom onset the last measurement was taken. It is evident that there is betweenstudy heterogeneity in the sensitivities, and that sensitivity increases with longer time from symptom onset.
For illustrative purposes, we compare the summary sensitivity and specificity of studies where the last measurement was performed within 3 hours of symptom onset versus greater than 3 hours from symptom onset (Table 8–2 and Figure 8–5). We use a bivariate multilevel model with exact binomial likelihood. In the fixed effects part of the model, we include a variable that codes whether the last measurement was earlier than 3 hours from symptom onset or not. We allow this variable to have different effects on the summary sensitivity and on the summary specificity. This is essentially a bivariate metaregression.
Note that properly specified bivariate metaregressions (or HSROCbased metaregressions) can be used to compare two or more medical tests. The specification of the metaregression models will be different when the comparison is indirect (when different medical tests are examined in independent studies) or direct (when the different medical tests are applied in the same patients in each study).
Figure 8–5. Sensitivity 1–specificity plot for studies of serial CKMB measurements
The left panel shows the sensitivity and specificity of 14 studies according to the timing of the last serial CKMB measurement for diagnosis of acute cardiac ischemia. The numbers next to each study point are the actual length of the time interval from symptom onset to last serial CKMB measurement. Filled circles: at most 3 hours; “x” marks: longer than 3 hours.
The right panel plots the summary points and the 95% confidence regions for the aforementioned subgroups of studies (at most 3 hours: blue filled circles; longer than 3 hours – red “x”s). Estimates are based on a bivariate metaregression using the time interval as a predictor. The predictor has distinct effects for sensitivity and specificity. This is the same analysis as in Table 8–2.
MetaAnalysis Metric  ≤3 Hours  >3 Hours  pValue for the Comparison Across Subgroups 

*Results based on a bivariate metaregression that effectively compared the summary sensitivity and summary specificity according to the timing of the last serial CKMB measurement for diagnosis of acute cardiac ischemia. The metaregression is on a variable that takes the value 1 if the time from the onset of symptoms to testing was 3 hours or less, and the value 0, when the respective time interval was more than 3 hours. The bivariate metaregression model allows for different effects of timing on sensitivity and specificity. To facilitate interpretation, we present the summary sensitivity and specificity in each subgroup, calculated from the parameters of the metaregression model, which also gave the pvalues for the effect of timing on test performance.  
Summary sensitivity (percent)  80 (64 to 90)  96 (85 to 99)  0.036 
Summary specificity (percent)  97 (94 to 98)  97 (95 to 99)  0.56 
Overall Recommendations
We summarize:
 Consider presenting a “summary point” when sensitivity and specificity do not vary widely across studies and studies use the same explicit or “implicit threshold.”
 To obtain a summary sensitivity and specificity use the theoretically motivated bivariate metaanalysis models.
 Backcalculate overall positive and negative predictive values from summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and for a plausible range of prevalence values rather than metaanalyzing them directly.
 Backcalculate overall positive and negative likelihood ratios from summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, rather than metaanalyzing them directly.
 If the sensitivity and specificity vary over a large range, it may be more helpful to use a summary line, which best describes the relationship of the average sensitivity and specificity. The summary line approach is also most helpful when different explicit thresholds are used across studies. To obtain a summary line use multivariate metaanalysis methods such as the HSROC model.
 Several SROC lines can be obtained based on multivariate metaanalysis models, and they can have different shapes.
 If there is evidence of a positive correlation, the variability in the studies cannot be secondary to a “threshold effect”; explore for missing important covariates. Arguably, the summary line is a valid description of how average sensitivity relates to average specificity.
 If more than one threshold is reported per study, this has to be taken into account in the quantitative analyses. We encourage both qualitative analysis via graphs and quantitative analyses via proper methods.
 One should explore the impact of study characteristics on summary results in the context of the primary methodology used to summarize studies using metaregressionbased analyses or subgroup analyses.
References
 Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 12EC017. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2012. Also published as a special supplement to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2012.
 Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998; 351(9096):123127.
 Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142(12 Pt 2):10481055.
 Lijmer JG, Leeflang M, Bossuyt PM. Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Making 2009; 29(5):E13E21.
 Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Decis Making 2009; 29(5):E1E12.
 Trikalinos TA, Kulasingam S, Lawrence WF. Deciding whether to complement a systematic review of medical tests with decision modeling. AHRQ Publication No. EHC082EF. Chapter 10 of Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews (AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC017). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2012. Also published in a special supplement to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2012.
 Matchar DB. Introduction to the methods guide for medical test reviews. AHRQ Publication No. EHC073EF. Chapter 1 of Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews (AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC017). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2012. Also published in a special supplement to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2012.
 Hartmann KE, Matchar DB and Chang S. Assessing applicability of medical test studies in systematic reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC078EF. Chapter 6 of of Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC017. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2012. Also published in a special supplement to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2012.
 Trikalinos TA, Ballion CM. Options for summarizing medical test performance in the absence of a "gold standard." AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC081EF. Chapter 9 of Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews (AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC017). Also published in a special supplement to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2012.
 Loong TW. Understanding sensitivity and specificity with the right side of the brain. BMJ 2003; 327(7417):716719.
 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138(1):W112.
 Santaguida PL, Riley CM and Matchar DB. Assessing risk of bias as a domain of quality in medical test studies. AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC077EF. Chapter 5 of Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC017. Also published in a specual supplement to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2012.
 Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH et al. Empirical evidence of designrelated bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999; 282(11):10611066.
 Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di NM, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 2006; 174(4):469476.
 Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140(3):189202.
 Becker DM, Philbrick JT, Bachhuber TL, Humphries JE. Ddimer testing and acute venous thromboembolism. A shortcut to accurate diagnosis? Arch Intern Med 1996; 156(9):939946.
 Balk EM, Ioannidis JP, Salem D, Chew PW, Lau J. Accuracy of biomarkers to diagnose acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a metaanalysis. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37(5):478494.
 Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Balk E, Milch C, Chew P, Terrin N et al. Evaluation of technologies for identifying acute cardiac ischemia in emergency departments. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ ) 2000;(26):14.
 Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JA. A unification of models for metaanalysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 2007; 8(2):239251.
 Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC et al. Guidelines for metaanalyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120(8):667676.
 Leeflang MMG, Bossuyt PM, Irwig L. Diagnostic accuracy may vary with prevalence: Implications for evidencebased diagnosis. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; (accepted).
 Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ 2004; 329(7458):168169.
 Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM. We should not pool diagnostic likelihood ratios in systematic reviews. Stat Med 2008; 27(5):687697.
 Simel DL, Bossuyt PM. Differences between univariate and bivariate models for summarizing diagnostic accuracy may not be large. J Clin Epidemiol 2009.
 Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, Shamliyan T, Sedrakyan A, Wilt TJ et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(11):11871197.
 Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56(11):11291135.
 Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58(10):982990.
 Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Thompson JR. Bivariate randomeffects metaanalysis and the estimation of betweenstudy correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7:3.
 Riley RD, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Thompson JR. An evaluation of bivariate randomeffects metaanalysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes. Stat Med 2007; 26(1):7897.
 Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JA, Egger M, Deeks JJ, Shang A et al. An empirical comparison of methods for metaanalysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61(11):10951103.
 Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. Regression methods for metaanalysis of diagnostic test data. Acad Radiol 1995; 2 Suppl 1:S48S56.
 Mulherin SA, Miller WC. Spectrum bias or spectrum effect? Subgroup variation in diagnostic test evaluation. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137(7):598602.
 Kardaun JW, Kardaun OJ. Comparative diagnostic performance of three radiological procedures for the detection of lumbar disk herniation. Methods Inf Med 1990; 29(1):1222.
 Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new metaanalytic method. Med Decis Making 1993; 13(4):313321.
 Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: dataanalytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 1993; 12(14):12931316.
 Oei EH, Nikken JJ, Verstijnen AC, Ginai AZ, Myriam Hunink MG. MR imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Radiology 2003; 226(3):837848.
 Visser K, Hunink MG. Peripheral arterial disease: gadoliniumenhanced MR angiography versus colorguided duplex USa metaanalysis. Radiology 2000; 216(1):6777.
 Arends LR, Hamza TH, van Houwelingen JC, HeijenbrokKal MH, Hunink MG, Stijnen T. Bivariate random effects metaanalysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making 2008; 28(5):621638.
 Chappell FM, Raab GM, Wardlaw JM. When are summary ROC curves appropriate for diagnostic metaanalyses? Stat Med 2009; 28(21):26532668.
 Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Kitsios G, Terasawa T, Raman G, Tatsioni, A, Tobar A, LauJ, Trikalinos TA, Schmid CH. Evaluating Practices and Developing Tools for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Task 1: Comprehensive Overview of Methods and Reporting of Meta Analyses of Test Accuracy. AHRQ Methods Research Report. AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC044EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; March 2012. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/diagnostictestsreviews_research.pdf
 Dukic V, Gatsonis C. Metaanalysis of diagnostic test accuracy assessment studies with varying number of thresholds. Biometrics 2003; 59(4):936946.
 Kester AD, Buntinx F. Metaanalysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making 2000; 20(4):430439.
 Trikalinos TA, Chung M, Lau J, Ip S. Systematic review of screening for bilirubin encephalopathy in neonates. Pediatrics 2009; 124(4):11621171.
 Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in metaanalysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 1999; 18(20):26932708.
 Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2002; 21(11):15251537.
 Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T. The binomial distribution of metaanalysis was preferred to model withinstudy variability. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61(1):4151.
 Chu H, Cole SR. Bivariate metaanalysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(12):13311332.
 Hamza TH, Reitsma JB, Stijnen T. Metaanalysis of diagnostic studies: a comparison of random intercept, normalnormal, and binomialnormal bivariate summary ROC approaches. Med Decis Making 2008; 28(5):639649.
 Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Handbook for diagnostic test accuracy reviews. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Funding
Funding: Funded by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) under the Effective Health Care Program.
Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Public domain notice: This document is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the document. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the specific permission of copyright holders.
Accessibility: Persons using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this report. For assistance contact EPC@ahrq.hhs.gov.
Conflict of interest: None of the authors has affiliations or financial involvements that conflict with the information presented in this chapter.
Corresponding author: TA Trikalinos, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St, Box#63, Boston, MA 02111, US.  Telephone: +1 617 636 0734  Fax: +1 617 636 8628. Email: Thomas.Trikalinos@tufts.edu.
Suggested citation: Trikalinos TA, Balion CM, Coleman CI, et al. Metaanalysis of test performance when there is a “gold standard.” AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC080EF. Chapter 8 of Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews (AHRQ Publication No. 12EHC017). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2012. Also published in a special supplement to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2012.