Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Meeting ReportSecondary data analysis

Explaining differences in diagnostic test accuracy between primary and secondary care: an IPD meta-analysis

Natasja Vijfschagt, Michiel de Boer, Huibert Burger, Thomas Fanshawe, Geert-Jan Geersing, Gea Holtman, Hans Reitsma and Maarten van Smeden
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2024, 22 (Supplement 1) 6317; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.22.s1.6317
Natasja Vijfschagt
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michiel de Boer
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Huibert Burger
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Fanshawe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geert-Jan Geersing
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gea Holtman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hans Reitsma
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maarten van Smeden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Context: Most diagnostic tests are evaluated in secondary care (SC). The sensitivity and specificity of medical tests vary between primary care (PC) and SC settings. This is due to diverse influences from factors at patient, test, study, and setting levels. Understanding these factors is critical for effectively interpreting and ultimately implementing diagnostic test results across settings.

Objective: This study aims to identify factors explaining the variation in diagnostic test accuracy between PC and SC using three clinical examples.

Study Design and Analysis: An individual participant data meta-analysis will be conducted. Explanatory factors that might affect sensitivity and specificity, including patient-level clinical variables and study-specific variables (risk of bias elements) will be identified through literature review and expert input. Factors will be analyzed using logistic regression analyses followed by bivariate random effects analyses.

Setting or Dataset: The study utilizes datasets from both SC and PC settings concerning three clinical examples: fecal calprotectin (FC) for organic gastrointestinal disorder (GID), D-dimer for pulmonary embolism (PLE), and D-dimer combined with the Wells score for PLE.

Population Studied: The population comprises patients suspected of organic GID or PLE.

Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity in the different settings.

Results: Data for FC include 1,554 patients (prevalence (prev) 11%) in PC and 764 patients (prev 41%) in SC. Preliminary results from FC show a pooled sensitivity of 89% (95%CI 81-94) in PC and 76% (95%CI 70-81) in SC, with respective specificities of 84% (95%CI 53-96) and 93% (95%CI 87-96). The D-Dimer and D-Dimer+Wells datasets have 3,174 patients (prev 9%) in PC, for SC there are 17,052 (prev 20%) for D-dimer and 15,531 (prev±20%) for D-dimer+Wells. Sensitivities for D-dimer+Wells score were 96% (95%CI 86-99%) in PC and 98% (95%CI 96-99) in SC, 49% (95%CI 42-57) in PC and 37% (95%CI 33-42) in SC. Age, symptoms (e.g., for FC: abdominal pain and change in bowel habit; for D-dimer: symptoms of deep vein thrombosis, Heart rate >100 beats/min), reference standard, and study biases will be evaluated. Final results are anticipated before summer.

Conclusion: This study provides insights into factors explaining diagnostic test accuracy across settings, potentially facilitating the identification of SC diagnostic tests that could be prioritized to be evaluated in PC.

  • © 2024 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. For the private, noncommercial use of one individual user of the Web site. All other rights reserved.
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 22 (Supplement 1)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 22 (Supplement 1)
Vol. 22, Issue Supplement 1
20 Nov 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Explaining differences in diagnostic test accuracy between primary and secondary care: an IPD meta-analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 13 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Explaining differences in diagnostic test accuracy between primary and secondary care: an IPD meta-analysis
Natasja Vijfschagt, Michiel de Boer, Huibert Burger, Thomas Fanshawe, Geert-Jan Geersing, Gea Holtman, Hans Reitsma, Maarten van Smeden
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2024, 22 (Supplement 1) 6317; DOI: 10.1370/afm.22.s1.6317

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Explaining differences in diagnostic test accuracy between primary and secondary care: an IPD meta-analysis
Natasja Vijfschagt, Michiel de Boer, Huibert Burger, Thomas Fanshawe, Geert-Jan Geersing, Gea Holtman, Hans Reitsma, Maarten van Smeden
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2024, 22 (Supplement 1) 6317; DOI: 10.1370/afm.22.s1.6317
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Comparative Study Using Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) in Prenatal Screening Among Pregnant Women in Canada
  • Family Practice: A more balanced, not just negative narrative based on data and evidence
Show more Secondary data analysis

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine