Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Multivariate Meta-Analysis Methods of Comparing the Sensitivity and Specificity of Two Diagnostic Tests
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Multivariate Meta-Analysis Methods of Comparing the Sensitivity and Specificity of Two Diagnostic Tests
Nam, Seon-Young; Song, Hae-Hiang;
  PDF(new window)
Researchers are continuously trying to find innovative diagnostic tests and published articles are accumulating at an enormous rate in many medical fields. Meta-analysis enables previously published study results to be reviewed and summarized; therefore, an objective assessment of diagnostic tests can be done with a meta-analysis of sensitivities and specificities. Data obtained by applying two diagnostic tests to a well-defined group of diseased patients produce a pair of sensitivity and by applying the same medical tests to a group of non-diseased subjects produce a pair of specificity. The statistical tests in the meta-analysis need to consider the correlatedness of the results from two diagnostic tests applied to the same diseased and non-diseased subjects. The associations between two diagnostic test results are often found to be unequal for the diseased and non-diseased subjects. In this paper, multivariate meta-analytic methods are studied by taking into account the different associations between correlated variables. On the basis of Monte Carlo simulations, we evaluate the performance of the multivariate meta-analysis methods proposed in this paper.
Meta analysis;diagnostic test;sensitivity and specificity;generalized linear mixed model;
 Cited by
Cho, H. and Cole, S. R. (2006). Bivariate meta-ananlysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: A generalized linear mixed model approach, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 1331-1333. crossref(new window)

Harbord, R. M., Deeks, J. J., Egger, M., Whiting, P. and Sterne, J. A. C. (2007). A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies, Biostatistics, 8, 239-251. crossref(new window)

Menke, J. (2010). Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX, Methods Inf Med, 49, 54-64.

Picano, E., Bedetti, G., Varga, A. and Cseh, E. (2000). The comparable diagnostic accuracies of dobutamine-stress and dipyridamole-stress echocardiographies: A meta-analysis, Coronary Artery Disease, 11, 151-159. crossref(new window)

Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Rob, J. S., Bossuyt, P. M. and Zwinderman, A. H. (2005). Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 982-990. crossref(new window)

Riley, R. D., Abrams, K. R., Sutton, A. J., Lambert, P. C. and Thompson, J. R. (2007a). Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 3. crossref(new window)

Riley, R. D., Abrams, K. R., Lambert, P. C., Sutton, A. J. and Thompson, J. R. (2007b). An evaluation of bivariate random-effects meta-analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, 26, 78-97. crossref(new window)

Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical Methods, Eighth Edition, Iowa State University Press.

van Houwelingen, H. C., Arends, L. R. and Theo, S. (2002). Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression, Statistics in Medicine, 21, 589-624. crossref(new window)