Fig 1.
The PRISMA flowchart of systematic selection.
Table 1.
Basic characteristics of studies included.
Fig 2.
Random-effects bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of the Modified Evan’s Blue Dye Test compared to the Fiberoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in the diagnosis of aspiration.
Abbreviations: Crosses around dots represent confidence intervals in both dimensions. The confidence region of 2D 95% is marked with blue dashed line.
Fig 3.
Forest plot of the negative predictive value of the Modified Evan’s Blue Dye Test compared to the Fiberoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in the diagnosis of aspiration.
Abbreviations: TP: true positive; FP: false positive; TN: true negative, FN: false negative; n: number of samples; CI: confidence interval.
Fig 4.
Forest plot of the positive predictive value of the Modified Evan’s Blue Dye Test compared to the Fiberoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in the diagnosis of aspiration.
Abbreviations: TP: true positive; FP: false positive; TN: true negative, FN: false negative; n: number of samples; CI: confidence interval.
Fig 5.
Linegraph of the dynamics of positive and negative predictive in relation to changing prevalences.
Table 2.
Summary of risk of bias and applicability concerns assessed by review authors for each domain in the included studies.