Skip to main content

Table 4 Meta-regression analyses of sensitivity and specificity

From: Serum CA-125 for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Parameter Category Number of studies Sensitivity (95% CI) P1 Specificity (95% CI) P2
Q1 Yes 14 0.87 (0.81–0.94) 0.08 0.89 (0.82–0.95) 0.36
  Uncertain 2 0.53 (0.18–0.88)   0.73 (0.42–1.00)  
Q2 Yes 8 0.80 (0.67–0.93) 0.06 0.73 (0.64–0.82)  < 0.001*
  No 8 0.88 (0.79–0.97)   0.94 (0.90–0.98)  
Q3 Yes 9 0.81 (0.69–0.94) 0.09 0.89 (0.81–0.97) 0.51
  No 7 0.88 (0.78–0.98)   0.84 (0.73–0.96)  
Q5 Yes 6 0.74 (0.57–0.91) 0.01* 0.81 (0.67–0.96) 0.04*
  No 10 0.89 (0.82–0.96)   0.90 (0.83–0.97)  
Q8 Yes 6 0.78 (0.62–0.94) 0.06 0.86 (0.75–0.98) 0.26
  Uncertain 10 0.88 (0.80–0.96)   0.88 (0.79–0.96)  
Country Yes 8 0.82 (0.69–0.94) 0.11 0.87 (0.77–0.97) 0.24
  No 8 0.88 (0.78–0.97)   0.88 (0.78–0.97)  
Q11 Yes 5 0.87 (0.75–0.99) 0.61 0.87 (0.76–0.99) 0.39
  No 11 0.83 (0.73–0.94)   0.87 (0.78–0.96)  
Language Yes 10 0.89 (0.81–0.96) 0.90 0.88 (0.80–0.97) 0.53
  No 6 0.76 (0.60–0.93)   0.85 (0.72–0.98)  
Method Yes 8 0.82 (0.69–0.94) 0.11 0.87 (0.77–0.97) 0.24
  No 8 0.88 (0.78–0.97)   0.88 (0.78–0.97)  
M-age Yes 10 0.78 (0.66–0.90)  < 0.001* 0.83 (0.73–0.93) 0.03*
  No 6 0.92 (0.86–0.99)   0.92 (0.85–1.00)  
  1. Q1: Is a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? (Yes/No)
  2. Q2: Dose the control group include other respiratory diseases? (Yes/No)
  3. Q3: Dose the study include appropriate exclusions? (Yes/No)
  4. Q5: If a threshold is used, is it pre-specified? (Yes/No)
  5. Q8: Is there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? (Yes/No)
  6. Q11: Is the number of cases >50? (Yes/No)
  7. Country: China (Yes) or other country (No)
  8. Language: English (Yes) and Chinese (No)
  9. Method: ECLIA [Electrochemiluminescence immunoassay] (Yes) or other methods (No)
  10. M-age: Mean or median age, ≥ 45 (Yes) or <45 (No)
  11. CI: confidence interval; *: There are statistically significant differences in pooled sensitivity or specificity between the studies with “yes” and the studies with “no” in the items, suggesting that these items may be significant sources of heterogeneity in sensitivity or specificity