PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - M. Hassan Murad
AU  - Lifeng Lin
AU  - Haitao Chu
AU  - Bashar Hasan
AU  - Reem A. Alsibai
AU  - Alzhraa S. Abbas
AU  - Reem A. Mustafa
AU  - Zhen Wang
TI  - The association of sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence: analysis of 6909 studies of diagnostic test accuracy
AID  - 10.1503/cmaj.221802
DP  - 2023 Jul 17
TA  - Canadian Medical Association Journal
PG  - E925--E931
VI  - 195
IP  - 27
4099  - http://www.cmaj.ca/content/195/27/E925.short
4100  - http://www.cmaj.ca/content/195/27/E925.full
SO  - CMAJ2023 Jul 17; 195
AB  - Background: Sensitivity and specificity are characteristics of a diagnostic test and are not expected to change as the prevalence of the target condition changes. We sought to evaluate the association between prevalence and changes in sensitivity and specificity.Methods: We retrieved data from meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003–2020). We used mixed-effects random-intercept linear regression models to evaluate the association between prevalence and logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity. The model evaluated all meta-analyses as nested within each systematic review.Results: We analyzed 6909 diagnostic test accuracy studies from 552 meta-analyses that were included in 92 systematic reviews. For sensitivity, compared with the lowest quartile of prevalence, the second, third and fourth quartiles were associated with significantly higher odds of identifying a true positive case (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09–1.26; OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.23–1.41; OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.37–1.58; respectively). For specificity, compared with the lowest quartile of prevalence, the second, third and fourth quartiles were associated with significantly lower odds of identifying a true negative case (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69–0.80; OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.60–0.70; OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.44–0.51; respectively). Pooled regression coefficients from bivariate models conducted within each meta-analysis showed that prevalence was positively associated with sensitivity and negatively associated with specificity. Findings were consistent across subgroups.Interpretation: In this large sample of diagnostic studies, higher prevalence was associated with higher estimated sensitivity and lower estimated specificity. Clinicians should consider the implications of disease prevalence and spectrum when interpreting the results from studies of diagnostic test accuracy.