BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies of diagnostic accuracy most often report pairs of sensitivity and specificity. We demonstrate the advantage of using bivariate meta-regression models to analyze such data. METHODS: We discuss the methodology of both the summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (sROC) and the bivariate approach by reanalyzing the data of a published meta-analysis. RESULTS: The sROC approach is the standard method for meta-analyzing diagnostic studies reporting pairs of sensitivity and specificity. This method uses the diagnostic odds ratio as the main outcome measure, which removes the effect of a possible threshold but at the same time loses relevant clinical information about test performance. The bivariate approach preserves the two-dimensional nature of the original data. Pairs of sensitivity and specificity are jointly analyzed, incorporating any correlation that might exist between these two measures using a random effects approach. Explanatory variables can be added to the bivariate model and lead to separate effects on sensitivity and specificity, rather than a net effect on the odds ratio scale as in the sROC approach. The statistical properties of the bivariate model are sound and flexible. CONCLUSION: The bivariate model can be seen as an improvement and extension of the traditional sROC approach.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies of diagnostic accuracy most often report pairs of sensitivity and specificity. We demonstrate the advantage of using bivariate meta-regression models to analyze such data. METHODS: We discuss the methodology of both the summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (sROC) and the bivariate approach by reanalyzing the data of a published meta-analysis. RESULTS: The sROC approach is the standard method for meta-analyzing diagnostic studies reporting pairs of sensitivity and specificity. This method uses the diagnostic odds ratio as the main outcome measure, which removes the effect of a possible threshold but at the same time loses relevant clinical information about test performance. The bivariate approach preserves the two-dimensional nature of the original data. Pairs of sensitivity and specificity are jointly analyzed, incorporating any correlation that might exist between these two measures using a random effects approach. Explanatory variables can be added to the bivariate model and lead to separate effects on sensitivity and specificity, rather than a net effect on the odds ratio scale as in the sROC approach. The statistical properties of the bivariate model are sound and flexible. CONCLUSION: The bivariate model can be seen as an improvement and extension of the traditional sROC approach.
Authors: Gunnar Tomasson; Peter C Grayson; Alfred D Mahr; Michael Lavalley; Peter A Merkel Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Jacquelien Dros; Otto R Maarsingh; Henriëtte E van der Horst; Patrick J Bindels; Gerben Ter Riet; Henk C van Weert Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Annelie Slaar; M M Fockens; Junfeng Wang; Mario Maas; David J Wilson; J Carel Goslings; Niels Wl Schep; Rick R van Rijn Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-12-07
Authors: Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Douglas J Lorenz; Mary Clyde Pierce; Kim Kaczor; Rachel P Berger; Gina Bertocci; Bruce E Herman; Sandra Herr; Kent P Hymel; Carole Jenny; John M Leventhal; Karen Sheehan; Noel Zuckerbraun Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Alik S Widge; M Taha Bilge; Rebecca Montana; Weilynn Chang; Carolyn I Rodriguez; Thilo Deckersbach; Linda L Carpenter; Ned H Kalin; Charles B Nemeroff Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 18.112