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

Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, et al. An Empirical Assessment of Bivariate Methods for Meta-Analysis of Test Accuracy [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Nov.

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].

Show details

References

1.
Miettinen OS. The modern scientific physician: 4. The useful property of a diagnostic. CMAJ. 2001;165:910–911. [PMC free article: PMC81501] [PubMed: 11599332]
2.
Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:850–855. [PubMed: 16754927]
3.
Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1048–55. [PubMed: 15968029]
4.
Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129–35. [PubMed: 14615004]
5.
Gatsonis C, Paliwal P. Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:271–81. [PubMed: 16861527]
6.
Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:820–826. [PubMed: 9382404]
7.
Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351:123–27. [PubMed: 9439507]
8.
Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316. [PubMed: 8210827]
9.
Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:313–21. [PubMed: 8246704]
10.
Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:982–90. [PubMed: 16168343]
11.
Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess. 2005;>9:1–113. iii. [PubMed: 15774235]
12.
Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Kitsios GD, Terasawa T, Raman G, Tatsioni A, et al. Evaluating Practices and Developing Tools for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Task 1: Comprehensive Overview of Methods and Reporting of Meta- Analyses of Test Accuracy. AHRQ Methods Research Report. 2012 AHRQ Publication No 12-EHC044-EF.
13.
Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20:2865–84. [PubMed: 11568945]
14.
Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JA. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2007;8:239–51. [PubMed: 16698768]
15.
Van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002;21:589–624. [PubMed: 11836738]
16.
Harbord RM, Whiting P. metandi: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. The Stata Journal. 2009;9:211–29.
17.
Macaskill P. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:925–32. [PubMed: 15504635]
18.
Willis BH, Quigley M. Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:27. [PMC free article: PMC3065444] [PubMed: 21401947]
19.
Paul M, Riebler A, Bachmann LM, Rue H, Held L. Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using integrated nested Laplace approximations. Stat Med. 2010;29:1325–39. [PubMed: 20101670]
20.
Verde PE. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test data: a bivariate Bayesian modeling approach. Stat Med. 2010;29:3088–102. [PubMed: 21170904]
21.
Chu H, Cole SR. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1331–32. [PubMed: 17098577]
22.
Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JA, Egger M, Deeks JJ, Shang A, et al. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1095–103. [PubMed: 19208372]
23.
Simel DL, Bossuyt PM. Differences between univariate and bivariate models for summarizing diagnostic accuracy may not be large. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1292–300. [PubMed: 19447007]
24.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88. [PubMed: 3802833]
25.
Jackson D, White IR, Thompson SG. Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2010;29:1282–97. [PubMed: 19408255]
26.
Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. Stata Corp; 2008. [PubMed: 27852809]
27.
Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A. Reliable estimation of generalized linear mixed models using adaptive quadrature. The Stata Journal. 2002;2:1–21.
28.
Arends LR, Hamza TH, van Houwelingen JC, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG, Stijnen T. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:621–38. [PubMed: 18591542]
29.
Chappell FM, Raab GM, Wardlaw JM. When are summary ROC curves appropriate for diagnostic meta-analyses? Stat Med. 2009;28:2653–68. [PubMed: 19591118]
30.
Scheffe H. A Method for Judging all Contrasts in the Analysis of Variance. Biometrika. 1953;40:87–104.
31.
Cox NJ. Graphing agreement and disagreement. The Stata Journal. 2004;4:329–49.
32.
Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS -- a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing. 2011;10:325–37.
33.
Chang BH, Waternaux C, Lipsitz S. Meta-analysis of binary data: which within study variance estimate to use? Stat Med. 2001;20:1947–56. [PubMed: 11427951]
34.
Van Gelder JM. Computed tomographic angiography for detecting cerebral aneurysms: implications of aneurysm size distribution for the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Neurosurgery. 2003;53:597–605. [PubMed: 12943576]
35.
Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:41–51. [PubMed: 18083461]
36.
Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Thompson JR. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:3–3. [PMC free article: PMC1800862] [PubMed: 17222330]
37.
Hamza TH, Reitsma JB, Stijnen T. Meta-analysis of diagnostic studies: a comparison of random intercept, normal-normal, and binomial-normal bivariate summary ROC approaches. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:639–49. [PubMed: 18753684]
38.
Menke J. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX. Methods Inf Med. 2010;49:54. [PubMed: 19936437]
39.
Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer.A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1997;278:1096–101. [PubMed: 9315770]
40.
Hamza TH, Arends LR, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T. Multivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with multiple thresholds. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:73–73. [PMC free article: PMC2787531] [PubMed: 19903336]
41.
Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Multivariate random-effects approach: for meta-analysis of cancer staging studies. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:974–84. [PubMed: 17659244]
42.
Dukic V, Gatsonis C. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy assessment studies with varying number of thresholds. Biometrics. 2003;59:936–46. [PubMed: 14969472]

Views

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...