Figure 14 presents histograms of absolute differences in estimated sensitivity and specificity from bivariate random effects meta-analyses fit using fully Bayesian vs. maximum likelihood estimation (using the exact binomial likelihood to represent within-study variability). The plots for sensitivity (left panel) and specificity (right panel) indicate that large differences in the point estimates are rare. The absolute difference was larger than 0.05 in only a single meta-analysis (and only for sensitivity).

Figure 14Histograms of differences in estimated summary sensitivity and specificity from bivariate random effects meta-analyses fit using fully Bayesian versus MLE estimation (using the exact binomial likelihood to represent within-study variability)

Note: Histograms of differences in estimated summary sensitivity (left panel) and specificity (right panel) comparing bivariate random effects meta-analysis models fit using fully Bayesian versus MLE (both models used the exact binomial likelihood to represent within-study variability)

MLE = maximum likelihood estimation.

From: Results

Cover of An Empirical Assessment of Bivariate Methods for Meta-Analysis of Test Accuracy
An Empirical Assessment of Bivariate Methods for Meta-Analysis of Test Accuracy [Internet].
Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.