Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There are several generalized linear mixed models to combine direct and indirect evidence on several diagnostic tests from related but independent diagnostic studies simultaneously also known as network meta-analysis. The popularity of these models is due to the attractive features of the normal distribution and the availability of statistical software to obtain parameter estimates. However, modeling the latent sensitivity and specificity using the normal distribution after transformation is neither natural nor computationally convenient.

In this article, we develop a meta-analytic model based on the bivariate beta distribution, allowing to obtain improved and direct estimates for the global sensitivities and specificities of all tests involved, and taking into account simultaneously the intrinsic correlation between sensitivity and specificity and the overdispersion due to repeated measures.

Using the beta distribution in regression has the following advantages, that the probabilities are modeled in their proper scale rather than a monotonic transform of the probabilities. Secondly, the model is flexible as it allows for asymmetry often present in the distribution of bounded variables such as proportions, which is the case with sparse data common in meta-analysis. Thirdly, the model provides parameters with direct meaningful interpretation since further integration is not necessary to obtain the meta-analytic estimates.

Keywords

Network meta-analysis diagnostic studies generalized linear mixed models beta distribution proportions meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bender

Bunce

Clarke

et al.

Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 857–865.

Siadaty

Philbrick

Heim

et al.

Repeated-measures modeling improved comparison of diagnostic tests in meta-analysis of dependent studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 698–711.

Achana

Cooper

Bujkiewicz

et al.

Network meta-analysis of multiple outcome measures accounting for borrowing of information across outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 92–92.

Dimou

Adam

Bagos

. A multivariate method for meta-analysis and comparison of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2016; 35: 3509–3523.

Reitsma

Glas

Rutjes

AWS

et al.

Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 982–990.

Menten

Lesaffre

. A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015; 15: 1–13.

Chu

Nie

Chen

et al.

Bivariate random effects models for meta-analysis of comparative studies with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk. Stat Methods Med Res 2010; 21: 621–633.

Zhang

Carlin

Neaton

et al.

Network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: reporting the proper summaries. Clin Trials 2014; 11: 246–262.

Nyaga

Arbyn

Aerts

. ANOVA model for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Stat Methods Med Res 2016. doi: 10.1177/0962280216669182.

10.

Higgins

JPT

Thompson

Spiegelhalter

. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Stat Soc) 2009; 172: 137–159.

11.

Chung

Rabe-Hesketh

Choi

. Avoiding zero between-study variance estimates in random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med 2013; 32: 4071–4089.

12.

Aitkin

. Meta-analysis by random effect modelling in generalized linear models. Stat Med 1999; 18: 2343–2351.

13.

Nikoloulopoulos

. A mixed effect model for bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies using a copula representation of the random effects distribution. Stat Med 2015; 34: 3842–3865.

14.

Nyaga VN. CopulaDTA: copula based bivariate beta-binomial model for diagnostic test accuracy studies, https://cran.r-project.org/package=CopulaDTA (2016, accessed 1 October 2016).

15.

Arbyn

Ronco

Anttila

et al.

Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 2012; 30: F88–F99.

16.

Arbyn

Roelens

Simoens

et al.

Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2013; 3: CD008054–CD008054.

17.

Arbyn

Roelens

Cuschieri

. The APTIMA HPV assay versus the hybrid capture 2 test in triage of women with ASC‐US or LSIL cervical cytology: a meta‐analysis of the diagnostic. Int J Cancer 2013; 132: 101–108.

18.

Roelens

Reuschenbach

Von Knebel Doeberitz

et al.

P16INK4a immunocytochemistry versus human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with minor cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Cytopathol 2012; 120: 294–307.

19.

Verdoodt

Szarewski

Halfon

et al.

Triage of women with minor abnormal cervical cytology: meta-analysis of the accuracy of an assay targeting messenger ribonucleic acid of 5 high-risk human papillomavirus types. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121: 675–687.

20.

Sklar

. Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges 1959; Vol 8, Publications de l'Institut de Statistique de L'Université de Paris, pp. 229–231.

21.

Nelsen

Sklar's theorem. In: Bickel

Diggle

Fienberg

(eds). An introduction to copulas, 2nd ed. NY: Springer-Verlag Springer Street, New York, United States of America: Springer series in statistics, 2006, pp. 17–23.

22.

Frank

. On the simultaneous associativity ofF(x, y) andx + y − F(x, y). Aequationes Math. Birkhäuser-Verlag 1979; 19: 194–226.

23.

Rubin

. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 1976; 63: 581–592.

24.

Jackman

Hierarchical statistical models. In: Balding

Cressie

NAC

Fitzmaurice

et al. (eds). Bayesian analysis for the social sciences, Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley Series in Probability and statistics, 2009, pp. 301–362.

25.

Molenberghs

Kenward

The direct likelihood method. In: Stephen

Vic

(eds). Missing data in clinical studies, West Sussex, England: Wiley Series in Statistics in Practice, 2007, pp. 77–91.

26.

Little

Rubin

Mixed normal and non-normal data with missing values, ignoring the missing-data mechanism. In: Balding

Bloomfield

Cressie

NAC

et al. (eds). Statistical analysis with missing data, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Series in Probability and statistics, 2002. . pp. 292–309.

27.

Beunckens

Molenberghs

Michael

. Direct likelihood analysis versus simple forms of imputation for missing data in randomized clinical trials. Clin Trials 2005; 2: 379–386.

28.

Carpenter

Lee

Brubaker

et al.

Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J Stat Softw. In Press.

29.

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, http://www.r-project.org/ (2016, accessed 1 October 2016).

30.

Gelman

Prior distribution. In: El-Shaarawi

Piegorsch

(eds). Encyclopedia of environmetrics, 2nd ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2002, pp. 1634–1637.

31.

Molenberghs

Verbeke

The generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). In: Bickel

Diggle

Fienberg

(eds). Models for discrete longitudinal data, 1st ed. NY: Springer-Verlag, Springer Street, New York, United States of America: Springer series in statistics, 2005, pp. 265–278.

32.

Zeger

Liang

K-Y

Albert

. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 1049–1060.

33.

Chen

Liu

Ning

et al.

A composite likelihood method for bivariate meta-analysis in diagnostic systematic reviews. Stat Methods Med Res 2014. doi: 10.1177/0962280214562146.

34.

Chen

Hong

Ning

et al.

Meta-analysis of studies with bivariate binary outcomes: a marginal beta-binomial model approach. Stat Med 2016; 35: 21–40.

35.

Zapf

Hoyer

Kramer

et al.

Nonparametric meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies. Stat Med 2015; 34: 3831–3841.

36.

Agresti

Caffo

Ohman-Strickland

. Examples in which misspecification of a random effects distribution reduces efficiency, and possible remedies. Comput Stat Data Anal 2004; 47: 639–653.

37.

Bergeron

Ikenberg

Sideri

et al.

Prospective evaluation of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for managing women with abnormal papanicolaou cytology: PALMS study results. Cancer Cytopathol 2015; 123: 373–381.

38.

Arbyn M, Xu L, Verdoodt F, et al. Genotyping for human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in women with minor cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. Epub ahead of print 15 November 2016. DOI: 10.7326/M15-2735.

39.

Walter

Irwig

. Estimation of test error rates, disease prevalence and relative risk from misclassified data: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 923–937.

40.

Schmidt

Bergeron

Denton

et al.

p16/Ki-67 Dual-stain cytology in the triage of ASCUS and LSIL papanicolaou cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2011; 119: 158–166.

41.

Walter

Irwig

Glasziou

. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 943–951.

42.

Valenstein

. Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards. Am J Clin Pathol 1990; 93: 252–258.

43.

Reitsma

Rutjes

AWS

Khan

et al.

A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 797–806.

44.

van Smeden

Oberski

Reitsma

et al.

Problems in detecting misfit of latent class models in diagnostic research without a gold standard were shown. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 74: 158–166.

45.

Pepe

Janes

. Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance. Biostatistics 2007; 8: 474–484.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

Beta-binomial analysis of variance model for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material