Skip to main content

Table 2 Small-study effects and time trends

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

 

Accuracy measurea

Relative increaseb(95% CI)Pvalue

T2 vs. T1c(95% CI)Pvalue

T3 vs. T1c(95% CI)Pvalue

Number of diseased

Sensitivity

1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) P = 0.09

1.08 (0.87 to 1.34) P = 0.50

1.22 (0.99 to 1.51) P = 0.06

Number of non-diseased

Specificity

1.00 (0.99 to 1.02) P = 0.49

1.05 (0.83 to 1.33) P = 0.66

0.97 (0.73 to 1.28) P = 0.82

Sample size

DOR

1.01 (1.00 to 1.03) P = 0.07

1.15 (0.94 to 1.40) P = 0.16

1.26 (0.96 to 1.64) P = 0.09

Time since first publication

Sensitivity

0.89 (0.80 to 0.99) P = 0.04

0.61 (0.11 to 3.39) P = 0.57

0.59 (0.13 to 2.67) P = 0.49

Time since first publication

Specificity

1.04 (0.90 to 1.19) P = 0.60

1.07 (0.85 to 1.35) P = 0.55

1.00 (0.76 to 1.32) P = 0.99

Time since first publication

DOR

0.94 (0.80 to 1.10) P = 0.42

0.94 (0.71 to 1.25) P = 0.68

0.93 (0.71 to 1.21) P = 0.57

  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; cT1 is the lowest tertile of sample size or time since first publication, T3 the highest. DOR, diagnostic odds ratio.