Meta-analysis of screening data: a survey of the literature - PubMed

Review

Meta-analysis of screening data: a survey of the literature

S D Walter et al. Stat Med. 1999.

Abstract

Meta-analysis has become a popular technique in many areas of biomedical research. While there have been a number of studies and commentaries on the use of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of clinical trials of therapy, little is known about the use of meta-analysis techniques for the evaluation of screening data. This paper presents the first systematic survey of meta-analyses of screening, with an assessment of their methodologic quality and their statistical methods. Our findings show that meta-analysis has not often been used in this area as yet, and that published meta-analyses of screening are often deficient in their reporting of methodology. A brief examination of the evaluative methods of several policy-making groups reveals that they did not routinely use formal quantitative meta-analyses of screening data, at least until 1997. There is considerable potential for meta-analyses of this kind, but improvement in methodological standards will be required to obtain valid conclusions.

Similar articles

• Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups.

  Niedhammer I, Milner A, Witt K, Klingelschmidt J, Khireddine-Medouni I, Alexopoulos EC, Toivanen S, Chastang JF, LaMontagne AD. Niedhammer I, et al. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2018 Jan 1;44(1):108-110. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3698. Epub 2017 Dec 8. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2018. PMID: 29218357

• Meta-analysis: an update.

  Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Sacks HS, et al. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996 May-Sep;63(3-4):216-24. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996. PMID: 8692168 Review.

• Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.

  Zhang J, Wang J, Han L, Zhang F, Cao J, Ma Y. Zhang J, et al. Nurs Outlook. 2015 Jul-Aug;63(4):446-455.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.11.020. Epub 2014 Dec 4. Nurs Outlook. 2015. PMID: 26187084 Review.

• Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 3: Pearls and Pitfalls of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews.

  Harris JD, Brand JC, Cote MP, Dhawan A. Harris JD, et al. Arthroscopy. 2017 Aug;33(8):1594-1602. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.055. Epub 2017 Apr 27. Arthroscopy. 2017. PMID: 28457677 Review.

Cited by

• Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

  Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Gøtzsche PC, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 4;2013(6):CD001877. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 23737396 Free PMC article. Review.

• Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature.

  Honest H, Khan KS. Honest H, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2:4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-2-4. Epub 2002 Mar 7. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002. PMID: 11884248 Free PMC article.

• On summary ROC curve for dichotomous diagnostic studies: an application to meta-analysis of COVID-19.

  Tzeng S, Chen CS, Li YF, Chen JH. Tzeng S, et al. J Appl Stat. 2022 Feb 25;50(6):1418-1434. doi: 10.1080/02664763.2022.2041565. eCollection 2023. J Appl Stat. 2022. PMID: 37025283 Free PMC article.

Publication types

MeSH terms