Skip to main content

Table 3 Small-study effects and time trends assessed in subgroups of imaging and laboratory tests

From: Small-study effects and time trends in diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study

  Accuracy measurea Imaging test (N  = 27 meta-analyses) Laboratory test (N  = 14 meta-analyses)
Relative increaseb(95% CI)Pvalue Relative increaseb(95% CI)Pvalue
Diseased Sensitivity 1.13 (1.05 to 1.22) P = 0.002 1.01 (0.80 to 1.28) P = 0.92
Non-diseased Specificity 1.03 (0.86 to 1.24) P = 0.73 1.01 (1.00-1.02) P = 0.14
Sample size DOR 1.05 (0.97 to 1.14) P = 0.23 0.94 (0.63 to 1.40) P = 0.76
Time since first publication Sensitivity 0.88 (0.77 to 1.00) P = 0.05 0.94 (0.75 to 1.17) P = 0.57
Time since first publication Specificity 1.02 (0.87 to 1.19) P = 0.84 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58) P = 0.50
Time since first publication DOR* 0.89 (0.78 to 1.02) P = 0.09 0.87 (0.42 to 1.81) P = 0.71
  1. aThe analyses were performed on the natural logarithm of the DOR and on the logit scale for sensitivity and specificity; brelative increase for sensitivity, specificity, and DOR is reported per increase in 100 diseased, non-diseased, or total participants, respectively. For time since first publication, the relative increase is reported per 5 year increase. *DOR, diagnostic odds ratio.