The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-56) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
SC carried out all statistical and computing analysis. WB collected and prepared all meta-analytic data sets. HH conceived the theoretical modelling work and DB drafted the idea of the approach and finalized the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
A proportional hazards measure is suggested in the context of analyzing SROC curves that arise in the meta–analysis of diagnostic studies. The measure can be motivated as a special model: the Lehmann model for ROC curves. The Lehmann model involves study–specific sensitivities and specificities and a diagnostic accuracy parameter which connects the two.
A study–specific model is estimated for each study, and the resulting study-specific estimate of diagnostic accuracy is taken as an outcome measure for a mixed model with a random study effect and other study-level covariates as fixed effects. The variance component model becomes estimable by deriving within-study variances, depending on the outcome measure of choice. In contrast to existing approaches – usually of bivariate nature for the outcome measures – the suggested approach is univariate and, hence, allows easily the application of conventional mixed modelling.
Some simple modifications in the SAS procedure proc mixed allow the fitting of mixed models for meta-analytic data from diagnostic studies. The methodology is illustrated with several meta–analytic diagnostic data sets, including a meta–analysis of the Mini–Mental State Examination as a diagnostic device for dementia and mild cognitive impairment.
The proposed methodology allows us to embed the meta-analysis of diagnostic studies into the well–developed area of mixed modelling. Different outcome measures, specifically from the perspective of whether a local or a global measure of diagnostic accuracy should be applied, are discussed as well. In particular, variation in cut-off value is discussed together with recommendations on choosing the best cut-off value. We also show how this problem can be addressed with the proposed methodology.
Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F: Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. 2000, New York: Wiley
Deeks JJ: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in context, vol.14, pp.248-282. 2007, London: BMJ Books,
Meta-Analysis. New Developments and Applications in Medical and Social Sciences. 2003, Hogrefe & Huber: Göttingen
Pepe MS: Receiver operating characteristic methodology. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000, 95: 308-311. 10.1080/01621459.2000.10473930. CrossRef
Pepe MS: The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. 2003, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Holling H, Böhning W, Böhning D: Meta-analysis of diagnostic studies based upon SROC-curves: a mixed model approach using the Lehmann family. Stat Modelling – Int J. 2012, 12: 347-375. 10.1177/1471082X1201200403. CrossRef
Swets JA: Signal Detection Theory and ROC Analysis in Psychology and Diagnostics Collected Papers. 1996, New York, London: Psychology Press Taylor & Francis Group
Doust JA, Glasziou PP, Pietrzak E, Dobson AJ: A system reviews of diagnostic accuracy of natriyretic peptides for heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2004, 2: 9-
Walter SD, Macaskill P: SROC curve. Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical statistics. 2004, New York: Marcel Dekker,
Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JAC: A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2006, 1: 1-21.
Aertgeerts FB, Kester A: The value of the CAGE in screening for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence in general clinical populations: a diagnostic meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 57: 30-39. CrossRef
SAS Institute Inc: SAS/STAT(R) 9.2 User’s Guide, Second Edition. 2008, Cary, NC, USA: SAS Insitute Inc.
Self SG, Liang K-Y: Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987, 82: 605-610. 10.1080/01621459.1987.10478472. CrossRef
Schuetz GM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M: Use of 3Œ2 tables with an intention to diagnose approach to assess clinical performance of diagnostic tests: meta-analytical evaluation of coronary CT angiography studies. BMJ. 2012, 345: 6717-10.1136/bmj.e6717. CrossRef
- Meta-analysis and meta-modelling for diagnostic problems
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II