Meta‐analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: Alternative parameterizations and model selection

In a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies, the sensitivities and specificities of a diagnostic test may depend on the disease prevalence since the severity and definition of disease may differ from study to study due to the design and the population considered. In this paper, we extend the bivariate nonlinear random effects model on sensitivities and specificities to jointly model the disease prevalence, sensitivities and specificities using trivariate nonlinear random-effects models. Furthermore, as an alternative parameterization, we also propose jointly modeling the test prevalence and the predictive values, which reflect the clinical utility of a diagnostic test. These models allow investigators to study the complex relationship among the disease prevalence, sensitivities and specificities; or among test prevalence and the predictive values, which can reveal hidden information about test performance. We illustrate the proposed two approaches by reanalyzing the data from a meta-analysis of radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer and a simulation study. The latter illustrates the importance of carefully choosing an appropriate normality assumption for the disease prevalence, sensitivities and specificities, or the test prevalence and the predictive values. In practice, it is recommended to use model selection techniques to identify a best-fitting model for making statistical inference. In summary, the proposed trivariate random effects models are novel and can be very useful in practice for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.

[1]  Haitao Chu,et al.  A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. , 2009, Biostatistics.

[2]  M R Segal,et al.  Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis. , 1997, JAMA.

[3]  Alex J Sutton,et al.  Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[4]  Richard D Riley,et al.  An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. , 2008, Biostatistics.

[5]  Petra Macaskill,et al.  Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  J. C. Christiansen,et al.  Determinants of sensitivity and specificity of electrocardiographic criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy. , 1990, Circulation.

[7]  J. Fine,et al.  Diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis using a galactomannan assay: a meta-analysis. , 2006, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[8]  K Y Liang,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. , 1986, Biometrics.

[9]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  Haitao Chu,et al.  Estimating Vaccine Efficacy From Secondary Attack Rates , 2003 .

[11]  Steve Halligan,et al.  Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  H Brenner,et al.  Variation of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values with disease prevalence. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[16]  B. C. Choi.  Causal Modeling to Estimate Sensitivity and Specificity of a Test when Prevalence Changes , 1997, Epidemiology.

[17]  Kunihiro Nishimura,et al.  Meta-analysis: Diagnostic Accuracy of AntiCyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibody and Rheumatoid Factor for Rheumatoid Arthritis , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  C M Rutter,et al.  A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  Stephanie A. Mulherin,et al.  Spectrum Bias or Spectrum Effect? Subgroup Variation in Diagnostic Test Evaluation , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  Patrick M Bossuyt,et al.  We should not pool diagnostic likelihood ratios in systematic reviews , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  Jialiang Li,et al.  Prevalence‐dependent diagnostic accuracy measures , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  R. A. Leibler,et al.  On Information and Sufficiency , 1951 .

[23]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Beyond the Bench: Hunting Down Fugitive Literature , 2004, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[24]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  J. Fine,et al.  Meta-Analysis: Methods for Diagnosing Intravascular DeviceRelated Bloodstream Infection , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  D. Bates,et al.  Approximations to the Log-Likelihood Function in the Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Model , 1995 .

[27]  Roger M Harbord,et al.  A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. , 2007, Biostatistics.

[28]  Haitao Chu,et al.  Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  Thomas A Louis,et al.  Random Effects Models in a Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Two Diagnostic Tests Without a Gold Standard , 2009, Journal of the American Statistical Association.