Literature DB >> 24862512

A hybrid Bayesian hierarchical model combining cohort and case-control studies for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: Accounting for partial verification bias.

Xiaoye Ma1, Yong Chen2, Stephen R Cole3, Haitao Chu4.   

Abstract

To account for between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies, bivariate random effects models have been recommended to jointly model the sensitivities and specificities. As study design and population vary, the definition of disease status or severity could differ across studies. Consequently, sensitivity and specificity may be correlated with disease prevalence. To account for this dependence, a trivariate random effects model had been proposed. However, the proposed approach can only include cohort studies with information estimating study-specific disease prevalence. In addition, some diagnostic accuracy studies only select a subset of samples to be verified by the reference test. It is known that ignoring unverified subjects may lead to partial verification bias in the estimation of prevalence, sensitivities, and specificities in a single study. However, the impact of this bias on a meta-analysis has not been investigated. In this paper, we propose a novel hybrid Bayesian hierarchical model combining cohort and case-control studies and correcting partial verification bias at the same time. We investigate the performance of the proposed methods through a set of simulation studies. Two case studies on assessing the diagnostic accuracy of gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting lymph node metastases and of adrenal fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in characterizing adrenal masses are presented.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian method; cohort and case–control studies; diagnostic test; meta-analysis; partial verification bias

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24862512      PMCID: PMC4245380          DOI: 10.1177/0962280214536703

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  39 in total

1.  Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Fujian Song; Khalid S Khan; Jacqueline Dinnes; Alex J Sutton
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.196

2.  Accounting for nonignorable verification bias in assessment of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Andrzej S Kosinski; Huiman X Barnhart
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS.

Authors:  Paul C Lambert; Alex J Sutton; Paul R Burton; Keith R Abrams; David R Jones
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias.

Authors:  Ofer Harel; Xiao-Hua Zhou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: alternative parameterizations and model selection.

Authors:  Haitao Chu; Lei Nie; Stephen R Cole; Charles Poole
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Multiple imputation to correct for partial verification bias revisited.

Authors:  J A H de Groot; K J M Janssen; A H Zwinderman; K G M Moons; J B Reitsma
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Random Effects Models in a Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Two Diagnostic Tests Without a Gold Standard.

Authors:  Haitao Chu; Sining Chen; Thomas A Louis
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 5.033

8.  Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations.

Authors:  L E Moses; D Shapiro; B Littenberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 9.  Detection of lymph node metastases by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wenche M Klerkx; Leon Bax; Wouter B Veldhuis; A Peter M Heintz; Willem PthM Mali; Petra H M Peeters; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis.

Authors:  Jonathan Davey; Rebecca M Turner; Mike J Clarke; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  3 in total

1.  A Bayesian hierarchical model for network meta-analysis of multiple diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Xiaoye Ma; Qinshu Lian; Haitao Chu; Joseph G Ibrahim; Yong Chen
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Global identifiability of latent class models with applications to diagnostic test accuracy studies: A Gröbner basis approach.

Authors:  Rui Duan; Ming Cao; Yang Ning; Mingfu Zhu; Bin Zhang; Aidan McDermott; Haitao Chu; Xiaohua Zhou; Jason H Moore; Joseph G Ibrahim; Daniel O Scharfstein; Yong Chen
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Meta-Analysis Methods of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.

Authors:  Niki Dimou; Pantelis Bagos
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.