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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-530662 |
| Date | January 2024 |
| Creators | Heiter, Linus, Skagerlund, Hampus |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Statistiska institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0259 seconds