Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews

被引:2436
作者
Reitsma, JB
Glas, AS
Rutjes, AWS
Scholten, RJPM
Bossuyt, PM
Zwinderman, AH
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, NL-1100 DE Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dutch Cochrane Ctr, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
diagnosis; diagnostic accuracy studies; sensitivity and specificity; meta-analysis; meta-regression; review;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Objectives: Studies of diagnostic accuracy most often report pairs of sensitivity and specificity. We demonstrate the advantage of using bivariate meta-regression models to analyze such data. Methods: We discuss the methodology of both the summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (sROC) and the bivariate approach by reanalyzing the data of a published meta-analysis. Results: The sROC approach is the standard method for meta-analyzing diagnostic studies reporting pairs of sensitivity and specificity. This method uses the diagnostic odds ratio as the main outcome measure, which removes the effect of a possible threshold but at the same time loses relevant clinical information about test performance. The bivariate approach preserves the two-dimensional nature of the original data. Pairs of sensitivity and specificity are jointly analyzed, incorporating any correlation that might exist between these two measures using a random effects approach. Explanatory variables can be added to the bivariate model and lead to separate effects on sensitivity and specificity, rather than a net effect on the odds ratio scale as in the sROC approach. The statistical properties of the bivariate model are sound and flexible. Conclusion: The bivariate model can be seen as an improvement and extension of the traditional sROC approach. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:982 / 990
页数:9
相关论文
共 49 条
[2]   ASSESSMENT OF RADIOLOGIC TESTS - CONTROL OF BIAS AND OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS [J].
BEGG, CB ;
MCNEIL, BJ .
RADIOLOGY, 1988, 167 (02) :565-569
[3]   Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review [J].
Bipat, S ;
Glas, AS ;
van der Velden, J ;
Zwinderman, AH ;
Bossuyt, PMM ;
Stoker, J .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2003, 91 (01) :59-66
[4]   Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2003, 138 (01) :40-44
[5]   Systematic reviews in health care - Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening [J].
Deeks, JJ .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7305) :157-162
[6]   Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: Didactic guidelines [J].
Devillé W.L. ;
Buntinx F. ;
Bouter L.M. ;
Montori V.M. ;
De Vet H.C.W. ;
Van Der Windt D.A.W.M. ;
Bezemer P.D. .
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2 (1) :1-13
[7]   The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance [J].
Glas, AS ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Prins, MH ;
Bonsel, GJ ;
Bossuyt, PMM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 56 (11) :1129-1135
[8]   Tumor markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer. A systematic review [J].
Glas, AS ;
Roos, D ;
Deutekom, M ;
Zwinderman, AH ;
Bossuyt, PMM ;
Kurth, KH .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 169 (06) :1975-1982
[9]   SELECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF DIAGNOSTIC-TESTS AND PROCEDURES - PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATIONS [J].
GRINER, PF ;
MAYEWSKI, RJ ;
MUSHLIN, AI ;
GREENLAND, P .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1981, 94 (04) :553-+
[10]  
GUYATT GH, 1986, CAN MED ASSOC J, V134, P587