This thesis investigates two questions: the methodological strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis and the diagnostic performance of the Stockholm3 test for clinically significant prostate cancer. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis, we explore the robustness and limitations of meta-analysis, focusing on aspects such as bias assessment, heterogeneity, and the impact of the file-drawer problem. Applying these methods, we evaluate the Stockholm3 test’s performance, comparing it to the conventional Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test. Our analysis synthesizes data from four studies consisting of 6 497 men, indicating that the Stockholm3 test offers improved diagnostic accuracy, with a higher pooled Area Under the Curve (AUC), in turn suggesting better identification of clinically significant prostate cancer. Nonetheless, the study also reveals challenges within the practice of meta-analysis, including variation among study methodologies and the presence of bias. These findings highlight the dual purpose of the research: demonstrating the utility and drawbacks of meta-analysis and validating the Stockholm3 test’s potential as a diagnostic tool. The conclusions drawn emphasize the need for continued research to enhance both meta-analytic methods and the clinical applicability of the Stockholm3 test in broader populations.