We have located links that may give you full text access.
Different Evidence-Summaries have Implications for Contextualizing Findings of Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Tests.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019 January 15
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diagnostic tests, analysts use meta-analyses to provide inputs to parameters in decision models. Choosing parameter estimands from meta-analyses requires understanding the meta-analytic and decision-making contexts.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We expand on an analysis comparing positron emission tomography (PET), PET with computed tomography (PET/CT), and conventional workup (CW) in women with suspected recurrent breast cancer. We discuss Bayesian meta-analytic summaries (posterior mean over a set of existing studies, posterior estimate in an existing study, posterior predictive mean in a new study) used to estimate diagnostic test parameters (prevalence, sensitivity, specificity) needed to calculate quality-adjusted life years in a decision model contextualizing PET, PET/CT, and CW.
RESULTS: The mean and predictive mean give similar estimates, but the latter displays greater uncertainty. Namely, PET/CT outperforms CW on average but may not do better than CW when implemented in future settings.
CONCLUSION: Selecting estimands for decision model parameters from meta-analyses requires understanding the relationship between decision settings and meta-analysis studies' settings, specifically whether the former resemble one or all study settings or represent new settings. We provide an algorithm recommending appropriate estimands as input parameters in decision models for diagnostic tests to obtain output parameters consistent with the decision context.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We expand on an analysis comparing positron emission tomography (PET), PET with computed tomography (PET/CT), and conventional workup (CW) in women with suspected recurrent breast cancer. We discuss Bayesian meta-analytic summaries (posterior mean over a set of existing studies, posterior estimate in an existing study, posterior predictive mean in a new study) used to estimate diagnostic test parameters (prevalence, sensitivity, specificity) needed to calculate quality-adjusted life years in a decision model contextualizing PET, PET/CT, and CW.
RESULTS: The mean and predictive mean give similar estimates, but the latter displays greater uncertainty. Namely, PET/CT outperforms CW on average but may not do better than CW when implemented in future settings.
CONCLUSION: Selecting estimands for decision model parameters from meta-analyses requires understanding the relationship between decision settings and meta-analysis studies' settings, specifically whether the former resemble one or all study settings or represent new settings. We provide an algorithm recommending appropriate estimands as input parameters in decision models for diagnostic tests to obtain output parameters consistent with the decision context.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app