Literature DB >> 27487844

Meta-analysis for the comparison of two diagnostic tests to a common gold standard: A generalized linear mixed model approach.

Annika Hoyer1, Oliver Kuss1.   

Abstract

Meta-analysis of diagnostic studies is still a rapidly developing area of biostatistical research. Especially, there is an increasing interest in methods to compare different diagnostic tests to a common gold standard. Restricting to the case of two diagnostic tests, in these meta-analyses the parameters of interest are the differences of sensitivities and specificities (with their corresponding confidence intervals) between the two diagnostic tests while accounting for the various associations across single studies and between the two tests. We propose statistical models with a quadrivariate response (where sensitivity of test 1, specificity of test 1, sensitivity of test 2, and specificity of test 2 are the four responses) as a sensible approach to this task. Using a quadrivariate generalized linear mixed model naturally generalizes the common standard bivariate model of meta-analysis for a single diagnostic test. If information on several thresholds of the tests is available, the quadrivariate model can be further generalized to yield a comparison of full receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. We illustrate our model by an example where two screening methods for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes are compared.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Meta-analysis; comparison; generalized linear mixed models; sensitivity; specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27487844     DOI: 10.1177/0962280216661587

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


  4 in total

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

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

2.  Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  T Walsh; R Macey; D Ricketts; A Carrasco Labra; H Worthington; A J Sutton; S Freeman; A M Glenny; P Riley; J Clarkson; E Cerullo
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 6.116

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis compared to diagnostic mammographic projections (including magnification) among women recalled at screening mammography: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

Authors:  Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Lourdes Carrera; Jessica Beltrán; Margarita Posso; David Rigau; Annette Lebeau; Axel Gräwingholt; Xavier Castells; Miranda Langendam; Elsa Pérez; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Ruben Van Engen; Elena Parmelli; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 4.452

4.  Empirical comparisons of meta-analysis methods for diagnostic studies: a meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Kristine J Rosenberger; Haitao Chu; Lifeng Lin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.006

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.