System of Linear Equations to Derive Unreported Test Accuracy Counts for Meta‐Analysis

Meta-analyses assessing test accuracy typically require extracting true positive (TP), false negative (FN), false positive (FP), and true negative (TN) counts from each study, commonly organized in a 2 × 2 table. However, many published test accuracy studies do not report all of these counts, which can limit the ability of a meta-analysis to fully capture the available evidence on the screening or diagnostic accuracy of a given test. Fortunately, test accuracy studies often report sufficient parameters, such as sensitivity and specificity, that enable the estimation of unreported counts. The relationships between these commonly reported parameters and the unreported cell counts may be expressed mathematically and organized into a system of four linear equations. The basic principles of solving such systems using matrix methods are introduced, accompanied by examples illustrating the development and solution of linear systems with unknown TP, FN, TN, and TN counts. Approaches for handling rounding errors of reported test accuracy parameters in publications are also demonstrated. Additionally, methods for obtaining a bound solution are explored in scenarios where the solution for missing test accuracy counts results in a system with three linear equations and four unknowns, leading to non-unique solutions. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of these methods, and practical guidance for their implementation is provided. The Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and SAS and R code for the examples presented in this article are available in the Supporting Information.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Statistics in Medicine
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70336
Primary Topic
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.11
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

System of Linear Equations to Derive Unreported Test Accuracy Counts for Meta‐Analysis

Stacey Vandersluis, Myra Wang, Jesmin Antony, Xuanqian Xie et al.
Statistics in Medicine
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
2.11
article

System of Linear Equations to Derive Unreported Test Accuracy Counts for Meta‐Analysis

Stacey Vandersluis, Myra Wang, Jesmin Antony, Xuanqian Xie, Conrad Kabali
article en

Abstract

Meta-analyses assessing test accuracy typically require extracting true positive (TP), false negative (FN), false positive (FP), and true negative (TN) counts from each study, commonly organized in a 2 × 2 table. However, many published test accuracy studies do not report all of these counts, which can limit the ability of a meta-analysis to fully capture the available evidence on the screening or diagnostic accuracy of a given test. Fortunately, test accuracy studies often report sufficient parameters, such as sensitivity and specificity, that enable the estimation of unreported counts. The relationships between these commonly reported parameters and the unreported cell counts may be expressed mathematically and organized into a system of four linear equations. The basic principles of solving such systems using matrix methods are introduced, accompanied by examples illustrating the development and solution of linear systems with unknown TP, FN, TN, and TN counts. Approaches for handling rounding errors of reported test accuracy parameters in publications are also demonstrated. Additionally, methods for obtaining a bound solution are explored in scenarios where the solution for missing test accuracy counts results in a system with three linear equations and four unknowns, leading to non-unique solutions. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of these methods, and practical guidance for their implementation is provided. The Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and SAS and R code for the examples presented in this article are available in the Supporting Information.

Statistics in MedicineVol. 44(28-30)
University of Toronto (CA), Cancer Care Ontario (CA), Public Health Ontario (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
2.11
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

System of Linear Equations to Derive Unreported Test Accuracy Counts for Meta‐Analysis — Stacey Vandersluis, Myra Wang, et al. · Statistics in Medicine (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS