Table 4

Summary Findings and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of DRE for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings

Study, Year	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV
Al-Azab et al,¹⁶ 2007	0.50	0.61	0.49	0.62
Brett,¹⁷ 1998	0.67	N/A	N/A	N/A
Crawford et al,¹⁸ 1999	0.65	0.37	0.29	0.72
Elliott et al,¹⁹ 2008	0.65	0.65	0.52	0.64
Faria et al,²⁰ 2012	0.24	0.72	0.36	0.59
Kirby et al,²¹ 1994	0.73	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pederson et al,²² 1990	N/A	N/A	0.26	N/A
Pooled analysis^a
Estimate (95% CI)	0.51 (0.36–0.67)	0.59 (0.41–0.76)	0.41 (0.31–0.52)	0.64 (0.58–0.70)
Heterogeneity: I², %	98.4	99.4	97.2	95.0

DRE = digital rectal examination; NPV = negative predictive value; N/A = not available; PPV = positive predictive value.
↵a Pooled analysis of data from 6 studies of 3,304 patients total for sensitivity; 4 studies of 5,877 patients total for specificity; 6 studies of 4,581 patients total for positive predictive value; and 4 studies of 4,634 patients total for negative predictive value.