This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0272989X08323917v1 28/5/639    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hamza, T. H. Articles by Stijnen, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hamza, T. H. Articles by Stijnen, T. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Health Screening Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Studies: A Comparison of Random Intercept, Normal-Normal, and Binomial-Normal Bivariate Summary ROC Approaches

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Erasmus MC—Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, t.hussienhamza{at}erasmusmc.nl

Johannes B. Reitsma, PhD

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Theo Stijnen, PhD

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Erasmus MC—Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Department of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Background . The authors compared 3 recently introduced refinements of the Littenberg and Moses summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method for pooling studies of a diagnostic test: the random intercept (RI) linear meta-regression model, the approximate normal distribution (normal-normal [NN] model), and the binomial distribution (binomial-normal [BN] model). Methods . Using data from a published meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments, the authors varied the overall sensitivity and specificity, the between-studies variance, the within-study sample size, and the number of studies to evaluate the performances of the 3 methods in a simulation study. The parameters to be compared are the associated intercept, slope, and residual variance, using bias, mean squared error, and coverage probabilities. Results. The BN method always gave unbiased estimates of the intercept and slope parameter. The coverage probabilities were also reasonably acceptable, unless the number of studies was very small. In contrast, the RI and NN methods could produce large biases with poor coverage probabilities, especially when sample sizes of individual studies were small or when sensitivities or specificities were close to 1. Although this was rare in the simulations, the bivariate methods can suffer from nonconvergence mostly due to the correlation being close to ± 1. Conclusion. The binomial-normal model performed better than the other recently introduced methods for meta-analysis of data from studies of test performance.

Key Words: meta-analysis • diagnostic test • random intercept • bivariate random effects • sensitivity and specificity • summary ROC.

This version was published on September 1, 2008

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 28, No. 5, 639-649 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08323917


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?