Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 14, 2013; 19(10): 1645-1651
Published online Mar 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i10.1645
Table 1 Summary of included studies
Ref.PatientsAssay methodCut offTest results
Quality score
TPFPFNTNSTARDQUADAS
Ribera et al[12]86RIA3 U/mL or 9 U/mL160070119
Soliman et al[13]50ELISA26 pg/mL1303331512
Sathar et al[14]92RIA3.2 U/mL2512541310
Saleh et al[28]41ELISA0.35 IU/mL1301271611
Sharma et al[29]119ELISA112 pg/mL3031851813
Sathar et al[30]52ELISA20 pg/mL2102291412
Table 2 Characteristics of included studies
Ref.TB/N-TB patientsReference standardCross-sectional designConsecutive or randomBlinded designProspective
Ribera et al[12]16/70Bac/His or ClinNoYesNoYes
Soliman et al[13]17/33Bac/His or ClinNoYesYesYes
Sathar et al[14]30/62Bac/HisNoYesNoYes
Saleh et al[28]14/27Bac/His or ClinNoYesNoYes
Sharma et al[29]31/88Bac/HisYesYesYesYes
Sathar et al[30]23/29Bac/His or ClinNoYesNoYes
Table 3 Weighted meta-regression of the effects of study design methods and methodological quality on diagnostic accuracy of interferon-gamma assays
CovariateStudiesCoefficientRDOR (95%CI)P
Consecutive or random6---
Prospective6---
Cross-sectional design1-1.7630.17 (0.00, 2053.55)0.593
Blinded design2-0.6490.52 (0.01, 31.46)0.649
Methods
RIA2-0.8150.44 (0.01, 26.58)0.571
ELISA4
QUADAS ≥ 105-2.1370.12 (0.00, 98.54)0.387
STARD ≥ 135-2.1370.12 (0.00, 98.55)0.387