Abstract:In diagnostic accuracy studies, the contrast of interest can be one of the following: one single test contrast; comparing two or more single tests; further testing in addition to previous diagnostics; and comparing alternative diagnostic strategies. The clinical diagnostic problem under study must be specified. Studies of "extreme contrasts" (as early phase evaluations) and studies in "clinical practice" settings (assessing clinical value) should be distinguished. Design options are (1) survey of the total study population, (2) case-referent approach, or (3) test-based enrollment. Data collection should generally be prospective, but ambispective and retrospective approaches are sometimes appropriate. In addition to determinants of primary interest [the test(s) under study] possible modifiers of test accuracy and confounding variables must be specified. The reference standard procedure should be independent from the test results. Applying a reference standard can be difficult in case of classification errors, lack of a clear pathophysiologic concept, incorporation bias, or invasive or complex investigations. Possible solutions are: an independent expert panel, and the delayed type cross-sectional study (clinical follow-up). Also, a prognostic criterion can be chosen. For studies to be relevant for practice, inclusion criteria must be based on "intention to diagnose" or "intention to screen." The recruitment procedure is preferably a consecutive series of presenting patients or a target population screening, respectively. Sample size estimation should be routine. Analysis has to be focused on the contrast of interest. Estimating test accuracy and prediction of outcome need different approaches. External (clinical) validation requires repeated studies in other, similar populations. Also, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have a role. To enable readers of diagnostic research reports to evaluate whether methodological key issues were addressed, authors are advised to follow the STARD guidelines.

Meta‐Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies With Multiple Thresholds: Comparison of Approaches in a Simulation Study

A discrete time-to-event model for the meta-analysis of full ROC curves

Statistical inference for diagnostic test accuracy studies with multiple comparisons

Testing for Publication Bias in Diagnostic Meta-Analysis: A Simulation Study

A multiple testing framework for diagnostic accuracy studies with co-primary endpoints

Decision Curve Analysis: a Technical Note

Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study

A likelihood based sensitivity analysis for publication bias on summary ROC in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

Comparison of Diagnostic Markers with Repeated Measurements: a Non-Parametric ROC Curve Approach.

Diagnostic test accuracy in longitudinal study settings: Theoretical approaches with use cases from clinical practice

Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study

Joint meta-analysis of two diagnostic tests accounting for within and between studies dependence

Statistical methods for MRMC ROC studies.

A likelihood-based sensitivity analysis for addressing publication bias in meta-analysis of diagnostic studies using exact likelihood

HSROC Model in Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test and Its Solution in Stata

Sensitivity analysis with iterative outlier detection for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Improved Confidence Regions in Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

Aggregating multiple test results to improve medical decision-making

A modified regression method to test publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes

Hierarchical multinomial processing tree models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Simultaneous inference for partial areas under receiver operating curves -- with a view towards efficiency