Xu, DachunZou, LilingXing, YanHou, LeiWei, YidongZhang, JiQiao, YongxiaHu, DayiXu, YaweiLi, JueMa, Yunsheng2022-08-232022-08-232012-08-242012-09-18Can J Cardiol. 2012 Aug 24. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2012.06.014" target="_blank">Link to article on publisher's site</a>0828-282X (Linking)10.1016/j.cjca.2012.06.01422926041https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/44798BACKGROUND: In a previous review, we reported that ankle brachial index (ABI) METHODS: Quality of each study was assessed by standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy initiative and quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic, chi(2), and inconsistency index. The area under the curve and Q* were estimated using summary receiver operator curve. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of ABI RESULTS: Four studies comprising 569 patients (922 limbs) met inclusion criteria. Significant heterogeneity among these studies was not detected in DOR but was evident in pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR. The area under the curve under the summary receiver operator curve is 0.87 (standard error = 0.02) and diagnostic accuracy (Q*) is 0.80 (standard error = 0.02). Additionally, DOR was 15.33 with corresponding 95% confidence intervals of 9.39-25.02. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ABI CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that test of ABIen-USPeripheral Arterial DiseaseAnkle Brachial IndexBehavioral Disciplines and ActivitiesBehavior and Behavior MechanismsCardiovascular DiseasesCommunity Health and Preventive MedicinePreventive MedicineJournal Articlehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/prevbeh_pp/2213328200prevbeh_pp/221