Table 2.
Sensitivity analysis
| Subgroup | Number of studies | RR (95% CI) | Within-group heterogeneity (I2), % | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study design | ||||
| Parallel | 3 | 0.99 (0.84-1.18) | 59 | 0.95 |
| Cross-over | 6 | 1.03 (0.96-1.1) | 31 | 0.44 |
| ROSE | ||||
| Yes | 2 | 1.02 (0.78-1.33) | 84 | 0.90 |
| No | 7 | 1.02 (0.97-1.07) | 0 | 0.41 |
| Stylet | ||||
| Yes | 1 | 0.97 (0.41-2.32) | - | 0.95 |
| No | 8 | 1.02 (0.96-1.08) | 41 | 0.47 |
| Suction | ||||
| Yes | 5 | 1.01 (0.93-1.1) | 52 | 0.78 |
| No | 4 | 1.03 (0.95-1.12) | 17 | 0.45 |
| Quality | ||||
| High | 5 | 1.02 (0.93-1.12) | 52 | 0.67 |
| Low/moderate | 4 | 1.02 (0.95-1.1) | 19% | 0.61 |
Pooled risk ratio of diagnostic accuracy obtained according to (a) Study design, (b) ROSE, (c) Use of stylet; (d) Use of suction, and (e) Study quality. Numbers in parentheses indicate 95% CIs. Significances are reported in bold. CIs: Confidence intervals; ROSE: Rapid on-site evaluation; RR: Risk ratio