An empirical comparison of statistical methods for multiple cut-off diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) depression screening tool using published results vs individual participant data

Zelalem F. Negeri,Brooke Levis,John P. A. Ioannidis,Brett D. Thombs,Andrea Benedetti,Ying Sun,Chen He,Ankur Krishnan,Yin Wu,Parash Mani Bhandari,Dipika Neupane,Mahrukh Imran,Danielle B. Rice,Marleine Azar,Matthew J. Chiovitti,Kira E. Riehm,Jill T. Boruff,Pim Cuijpers,Simon Gilbody,Lorie A. Kloda,Scott B. Patten,Roy C. Ziegelstein,Sarah Markham,Liane Comeau,Nicholas D. Mitchell,Simone N. Vigod,Muideen O. Bakare,Cheryl Tatano Beck,Adomas Bunevicius,Tiago Castro e Couto,Genesis Chorwe-Sungani,Nicolas Favez,Sally Field,Lluïsa Garcia-Esteve,Simone Honikman,Dina Sami Khalifa,Jane Kohlhoff,Laima Kusminskas,Zoltán Kozinszky,Sandra Nakić Radoš,Susan J. Pawlby,Tamsen J. Rochat,Deborah J. Sharp,Johanne Smith-Nielsen,Kuan-Pin Su,Meri Tadinac,S. Darius Tandon,Pavaani Thiagayson,Annamária Töreki,Anna Torres-Giménez,Thandi van Heyningen,Johann M. Vega-Dienstmaier,the DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02134-w
2024-02-02
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Abstract:Selective reporting of results from only well-performing cut-offs leads to biased estimates of accuracy in primary studies of questionnaire-based screening tools and in meta-analyses that synthesize results. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) of sensitivity and specificity at each cut-off via bivariate random-effects models (BREMs) can overcome this problem. However, IPDMA is laborious and depends on the ability to successfully obtain primary datasets, and BREMs ignore the correlation between cut-offs within primary studies.
health care sciences & services
What problem does this paper attempt to address?