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 SpecificityOlivetti 2006 128 15 0 3 13 0.91 (0.74 to 0.97) 0.95 (0.77 to 1.00)Ghersin 2006 125 29 11 6 13 0.86 (0.73 to 0.94) 0.58 (0.38 to 0.76)Coles 2007 124 77 13 7 16 0.92 (0.85 to 0.96) 0.59 (0.41 to 0.75)Casciani 2008 123 15 1 2 19 0.93 (0.79 to 0.98) 0.93 (0.79 to 0.99)Sato 2005 129 21 1 1 8 0.95 (0.85 to 0.99) 0.89 (0.66 to 0.99)Henneman 2008 126 28 0 0 12 0.97 (0.90 to 1.00) 0.96 (0.81 to 1.00)Tsai 2007 130 50 5 1 22 0.96 (0.90 to 0.99) 0.84 (0.68 to 0.94)Pooled effect 0.94 (0.86 to 0.98) 0.87 (0.67 to 0.98)Predictive effect 0.93 (0.61 to 0.99) 0.87 (0.16 to 1.00)0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0FIGURE 29 Meta-analysis of CTCA diagnostic studies.© 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.71