Robust bivariate random-effects model for accommodating outlying and influential studies in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 3308-3325
Author(s):  
Zelalem F Negeri ◽  
Joseph Beyene

Due to the inevitable inter-study correlation between test sensitivity (Se) and test specificity (Sp), mostly because of threshold variability, hierarchical or bivariate random-effects models are widely used to perform a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Conventionally, these models assume that the random-effects follow the bivariate normal distribution. However, the inference made using the well-established bivariate random-effects models, when outlying and influential studies are present, may lead to misleading conclusions, since outlying or influential studies can extremely influence parameter estimates due to their disproportional weight. Therefore, we developed a new robust bivariate random-effects model that accommodates outlying and influential observations and gives robust statistical inference by down-weighting the effect of outlying and influential studies. The marginal model and the Monte Carlo expectation-maximization algorithm for our proposed model have been derived. A simulation study has been carried out to validate the proposed method and compare it against the standard methods. Regardless of the parameters varied in our simulations, the proposed model produced robust point estimates of Se and Sp compared to the standard models. Moreover, our proposed model resulted in precise estimates as it yielded the narrowest confidence intervals. The proposed model also generated a similar point and interval estimates of Se and Sp as the standard models when there are no outlying and influential studies. Two published meta-analyses have also been used to illustrate the methods.

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1227-1242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zelalem F Negeri ◽  
Joseph Beyene

Bivariate random-effects models are currently widely used to synthesize pairs of test sensitivity and specificity across studies. Inferences drawn based on these models may be distorted in the presence of outlying or influential studies. Currently, subjective methods such as inspection of forest plots are used to identify outlying studies in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. We proposed objective methods based on solid statistical reasoning for identifying outlying and/or influential studies. The proposed methods have been validated using simulation study and illustrated on two published meta-analysis data. Our methods outperform and neglect the subjectivity of the currently used ad hoc methods. The proposed methods can be used as a sensitivity analysis tool concurrently with the current bivariate random-effects models or as a preliminary analysis tool for robust models that accommodate outlying and/or influential studies in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 302-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian A M Tarr ◽  
Chu Yang Lin ◽  
Ben Vandermeer ◽  
Diane L Lorenzetti ◽  
Phillip I Tarr ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Rapid detection of Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli (STEC) enables appropriate monitoring and treatment. We synthesized available evidence to compare the performance of enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and PCR tests for the detection of STEC. Methods We searched published and gray literature for studies of STEC EIA and/or PCR diagnostic test accuracy relative to reference standards including at least one nucleic acid amplification test. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality with the second version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Bivariate random effects models were used to meta-analyze the clinical sensitivity and specificity of commercial EIA and PCR STEC diagnostic tests, and summary receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed. We evaluated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results We identified 43 articles reflecting 25 260 specimens. Meta-analysis of EIA and PCR accuracy included 25 and 22 articles, respectively. STEC EIA pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.681 (95% CI, 0.571–0.773; very low certainty of evidence) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.998–1.00; moderate certainty of evidence), respectively. STEC PCR pooled sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.904–1.00; low certainty of evidence) and 0.999 (95% CI, 0.997–0.999; low certainty of evidence), respectively. Certainty of evidence was downgraded because of high risk of bias. Conclusions PCR tests to identify the presence of STEC are more sensitive than EIA tests, with no meaningful loss of specificity. However, given the low certainty of evidence, our results may overestimate the difference in performance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document