Table 5

Results of the regression analysis for ultrasound for the diagnosis of reflux

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analyis


Variable*

RDOR (95% CI)

p-value

RDOR (95% CI)

p-value


Ultrasound for the detection of reflux: weighted (n = 28 studies)


Use of contrast enhanced ultrasound: yes vs no

23.9 (9.8, 58.8)

<0.001

8.0 (2.9, 22.0)

<0.001


Ultrasound for the detection of reflux, with ultrasound type forced into the model: weighted (n = 28 studies)


Appropriate reference standard: yes vs unclear +

0.2 (0.0, 1.0)

0.047

Dropped$

Disease progression bias avoided: yes vs unclear

3.5 (1.4, 9.2)

0.011

1.4 (1.0, 1.9)

0.033

Withdrawals accounted for: yes vs unclear

3.2 (1.2, 8.5)

0.020

2.8 (1.1, 6.9)

0.027

Withdrawals accounted for: no vs unclear

(0.4, 0.1, 1.7)

0.175

0.6 (0.1, 2.8)

0.502


Ultrasound for the detection of reflux: unweighted (n = 28 studies)


Use of contrast enhanced ultrasound: yes vs no

29.8 (13.5, 65.8)

<0.001

29.8 (13.5, 65.8)

<0.001


Ultrasound for the detection of reflux, with ultrasound type forced into the model: unweighted (n = 28 studies)


Appropriate reference standard *: yes vs unclear

0.2 (0.0, 1.2)

0.075

Dropped

Partial verification bias avoided: yes vs no

4.1 (1.1, 14.8)

0.034

4.1 (1.1, 14.8)

0.034


*Only items that showed moderate evidence (p < 0.10) for an association with the DOR in the univariate analysis are included.

+Only 1 unclear

$Items were dropped where there were too few studies in one category to allow a coefficient to be calculated.

Westwood et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005 5:20   doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-20

Open Data