Table 3. Summary results of the pooled and subanalysis by meta disc 1.4.
| StatisticalIndex | Pooled | Sample Sizeϕ | Instrument TypeΦ | ||
| Eligiblea | Non-eligible | HR-1 | Other§ | ||
| Sensitivity (%) | 97.7 | 99.3 | 96.6 | 95.1 | 98.7 |
| (96.8, 98.5) | (98.1, 99.8) | (94.9–97.8) | (92.0, 97.2) | (97.7, 99.3) | |
| Cochran's | 0.034 | 0.551 | 0.119 | 0.008 | 0.682 |
| Q (P value) | |||||
| I2 | 27.0% | 0.0% | 19.9% | 53.1% | 0.0% |
| Specificity | 95.8 | 93.4 | 96.2 | 99.5 | 95.4 |
| (%) | (95.3, 96.3) | (91.7, 94.9) | (95.7, 96.7) | (98.6, 99.9) | (94.9, 95.9) |
| Cochran's | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.373 | <0.0001 |
| Q (P value) | |||||
| I2 | 91.6% | 92.2% | 91.6% | 7.1% | 93.2% |
| LR + | 34.72 | 28.51 | 37.82 | 32.06 | 32.24 |
| (22.37, 53.90) | (9.80, 82. 92) | (22.61, 63.24) | (17.61, 58.37) | (19.88, 52.26) | |
| Cochran's | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.539 | <0.0001 |
| Q (P value) | |||||
| I2 | 87.2% | 93.2% | 85.2% | 0.0% | 89.0% |
| LR − | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.06 |
| (0.05, 0.09) | (0.01, 0.04) | (0.08, 0.13) | (0.06, 0.17) | (0.04, 0.08) | |
| Cochran's | 0.132 | 0.95 | 0.815 | 0.078 | 0.780 |
| Q (P value) | |||||
| I2 | 17.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 36.5% | 0.0% |
| DOR | 711.75 | 2198.5 | 522.16 | 634.96 | 816.23 |
| (427.18, | (735.39, | (304.06, | (262.66, | (431.39, | |
| 1185.9) | 6572.6) | 896.72) | 1535.0) | 1544.2) | |
| Cochran's | 0.031 | 0.31 | 0.102 | 0.829 | 0.004 |
| Q (P value) | |||||
| I2 | 27.2% | 14.4% | 21.2% | 0.0% | 39.5% |
§
: Other instruments included LightCycler480, Rotor-Gene6000, LightScanner96;
Φ
: the sensitivity of the eligible and other instruments groups were significantly higher than the non-eligible and HR-1 groups, while the opposite relationship was observed for specificity (P<0.0001).
a
: (>35 samples/amplicons with mutations and >35 samples/amplicons without mutations are needed to yield 95% confidence intervals whose lower bound is >90% sensitivity if the sensitivity is 100%).