×

A population-averaged approach to diagnostic test meta-analysis. (English) Zbl 1412.62174

Summary: The meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies is often of interest in screening programs for many diseases. The typical summary statistics for studies chosen for a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis are often two dimensional: sensitivities and specificities. The common statistical analysis approach for the meta-analysis of diagnostic studies is based on the bivariate generalized linear-mixed model (BGLMM), which has study-specific interpretations. In this article, we present a population-averaged (PA) model using generalized estimating equations (GEE) for making inference on mean specificity and sensitivity of a diagnostic test in the population represented by the meta-analytic studies. We also derive the marginalized counterparts of the regression parameters from the BGLMM. We illustrate the proposed PA approach through two dataset examples and compare performance of estimators of the marginal regression parameters from the PA model with those of the marginalized regression parameters from the BGLMM through Monte Carlo simulation studies. Overall, both marginalized BGLMM and GEE with sandwich standard errors maintained nominal 95% confidence interval coverage levels for mean specificity and mean sensitivity in meta-analysis of 25 of more studies even under misspecification of the covariance structure of the bivariate positive test counts for diseased and nondiseased subjects.

MSC:

62P10 Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis
62H30 Classification and discrimination; cluster analysis (statistical aspects)
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Ning, J., Nie, L., Zhu, H., & Chu, H. (2017). A composite likelihood method for bivariate meta‐analysis in diagnostic systematic reviews. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26, 914-930.
[2] Chu, H., Chen, S., & Louis, T. (2009). Random effects models in a meta‐analysis of the accuracy of two diagnostic tests without a gold standard. Journal of American Statistical Association, 104, 512-523.
[3] Chu, H., & Cole, S. R. (2006). Bivariate meta‐analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: A generalized linear mixed model approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 1331-1332.
[4] Chu, H., & Guo, H. (2009). Letter to the editor: A unification of models for meta‐analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics, 10, 201-203.
[5] Chu, H., Guo, H., & Zhou, Y. (2010). Bivariate random effects meta‐analysis of diagnostic studies using generalized linear mixed models. Medical Decision Making, 30, 499-508.
[6] Dendukuri, N., Schiller, I., Joseph, L., & Pai, M. (2012). Bayesian meta‐analysis of the accuracy of a test for tuberculous pleuritis in the absence of a gold standard reference. Biometrics, 68, 1285-1293. · Zbl 1259.62096
[7] Emrich, J. L., & Piedmonte, M. R. (1991). A method for generating high‐dimensional multivariate binary variates. The American Statistician, 45, 302-304.
[8] Fay, M. P., & Graubard, B. I. (2001). Small‐sample adjustments for Wald‐type tests using sandwich estimators. Biometrics, 57, 1198-1206. · Zbl 1210.62133
[9] Guo, J., Riebler, A., & Rue, H. (2017). Bayesian bivariate meta‐analysis of diagnostic test studies with interpretable priors. Statistics in Medicine, 36, 3039-3058.
[10] Hall, D. B. (2001). On the application of extended quasi‐likelihood to the clustered data case. Canadian Journal of Statistic, 29, 77-97. · Zbl 1035.62071
[11] Harbord, R. M., Deeks, J. J., Egger, M., Whiting, P., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2007). A unification of models for meta‐analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics, 8, 239-251. · Zbl 1144.62094
[12] Heagerty, P. J. (1999). Marginally specified logistic‐normal models for longitudinal binary data. Biometrics, 55, 688-698. · Zbl 1059.62566
[13] Hedeker, D., du Toit, S. H., Demirtas, H., & Gibbons, R. D. (2018). A note on marginalization of regression parameters from mixed models of binary outcomes. Biometrics, 74, 354-361.
[14] Hoyer, A., & Kuss, O. (2018). Meta‐analysis for the comparison of two diagnostic tests to a common gold standard: A generalized linear mixed model approach. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 27, 1410-1421.
[15] Kauermann, G., & Carroll, R. J. (2001). A note on the efficiency of sandwich covariance matrix estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 1387-1396. · Zbl 1073.62539
[16] Leeflang, M. M. G., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & Irwig, L. (2009). Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: Implications for evidence‐based diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 5-12.
[17] Leisenring, W., Pepe, M. S., & Longton, G. (1997). A marginal regression modelling framework for evaluating medical diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 1263-1281.
[18] Liu, Y., Chen, Y., & Chu, H. (2015). A unification of models for meta‐analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies without a gold standard. Biometrics, 71, 538-547. · Zbl 1390.62289
[19] Lu, B., Preisser, J. S., Qaqish, B., Suchindran, C., Bangdiwala, S., & Wolfson, M. (2007). A comparison of two bias‐corrected covariance estimators for generalized estimating equations. Biometrics, 63, 935-941. · Zbl 1147.62050
[20] Ma, X., Chen, Y., Cole, S., & Chu, H. (2016a). A hybrid Bayesian hierarchical model combining cohort and case‐control studies for meta‐analysis of diagnostic tests: Accounting for partial verification bias. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 25, 3015-3037.
[21] Ma, X., Chen, Y., Cole, S., & Chu, H. (2016b). Statistical methods for multivariate meta‐analysis of diagnostic tests: An overview and tutorial. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 25, 1596-1619.
[22] Mancl, L. A., & DeRouen, T. A. (2001). A covariance estimator for GEE with improved small‐sample properties. Biometrics, 57, 126-134. · Zbl 1209.62310
[23] Martus, P., Stroux, A., Junemann, A. M., Korth, M., Jonas, J. B., Horn, F. K., & Ziegler, A. (2004). GEE approaches to marginal regression models for medical diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine, 23, 1377-1398.
[24] Nikoloulopoulos, A. K. (2015). A mixed effect model for bivariate meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies using a copula representation of the random effects distribution. Statistics in Medicine, 34, 3842-3865.
[25] Nikoloulopoulos, A. K. (2017). A vine copula mixed effect model for trivariate meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26, 2270-2286.
[26] Preisser, J. S., Lu, B., & Qaqish, B. F. (2008). Finite sample adjustments in estimating equations and covariance estimators for intracluster correlations. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 5764-5785.
[27] Preisser, J. S., & Qaqish, B. F. (2014). A comparison of methods for simulating correlated binary variables with specified marginal means and correlations. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 84, 2441-2452.
[28] Rutter, C. M., & Gatsonis, C. A. (2001). A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 2865-2884.
[29] Safdar, N., Fine, J. P., & Maki, D. G. (2005). Meta‐analysis: Methods for diagnosing intravascular device‐related bloodstream infection. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142, 451-466.
[30] SAS/STAT® 14.3 Users Guide: PROC NLMIXED (2017) SAS Institute Inc., United States.
[31] Wang, W., Davis, C. S., & Soong, S. J. (2006). Comparison of predictive values of two diagnostic tests from the same sample of subjects using weighted least squares. Statistics in Medicine, 15, 2215-2229.
[32] Zeger, S. L., Liang, K. Y., & Albert, P. S. (1988). Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics, 44, 1049-1060. · Zbl 0715.62136
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.