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.

Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews / Reitsma, Jb; Glas, As; Rutjes, A; Scholten, Rj; Bossuyt, Pm; Zwinderman, Ah. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY. - ISSN 0895-4356. - 58:10(2005), pp. 982-990.

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

Rutjes A;
2005-01-01

Abstract

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.
58
10
982
990
Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews / Reitsma, Jb; Glas, As; Rutjes, A; Scholten, Rj; Bossuyt, Pm; Zwinderman, Ah. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY. - ISSN 0895-4356. - 58:10(2005), pp. 982-990.
Reitsma, Jb; Glas, As; Rutjes, A; Scholten, Rj; Bossuyt, Pm; Zwinderman, Ah
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2005_Reitsma_Glas_Rutjes_JClinEpi.pdf

Riservato

Dimensione 374.41 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
374.41 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1286634
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2196
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2030
social impact