Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of ...

DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Technology Assessment 2013 Vol. 17 No. 1Study TP FP FN TN Sensitivity Specificity Sensitivity SpecificityChristenson 2001 61 29 58 6 131 0.82 (0.68 to 0.92) 0.69 (0.62 to 0.75)Collinson 2006 48 18 322 19 179 0.54 (0.37 to 0.69) 0.36 (0.32 to 0.40)Hjortshoj 2010 68 32 36 5 34 0.85 (0.72 to 0.94) 0.48 (0.37 to 0.60)Keating 2006 70 35 203 7 32 0.82 (0.69 to 0.92) 0.14 (0.10 to 0.19)Pooled effect 0.78 (0.50 to 0.93) 0.40 (0.12 to 0.75)Predictive effect 0.77 (0.19 to 0.98) 0.39 (0.02 to 0.95)0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0FIGURE 20 Meta-analysis of studies of IMA.© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2013. This work was produced by Goodacre et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of Statefor Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journalsprovided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should beaddressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton SciencePark, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.45