当前位置: X-MOL 学术Biom. J. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Meta‐analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies with multiple thresholds: Comparison of different approaches
Biometrical Journal ( IF 1.7 ) Pub Date : 2021-01-21 , DOI: 10.1002/bimj.202000091
Antonia Zapf 1 , Christian Albert 2, 3 , Cornelia Frömke 4 , Michael Haase 2, 3 , Annika Hoyer 5 , Hayley E Jones 6 , Gerta Rücker 7
Affiliation  

Methods for standard meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies are well established and understood. For the more complex case in which studies report test accuracy across multiple thresholds, several approaches have recently been proposed. These are based on similar ideas, but make different assumptions. In this article, we apply four different approaches to data from a recent systematic review in the area of nephrology and compare the results. The four approaches use: a linear mixed effects model, a Bayesian multinomial random effects model, a time-to-event model and a nonparametric model, respectively. In the case study data, the accuracy of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury was assessed in different scenarios, with sensitivity and specificity estimates available for three thresholds in each primary study. All approaches led to plausible and mostly similar summary results. However, we found considerable differences in results for some scenarios, for example, differences in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of up to 0.13. The Bayesian approach tended to lead to the highest values of the AUC, and the nonparametric approach tended to produce the lowest values across the different scenarios. Though we recommend using these approaches, our findings motivate the need for a simulation study to explore optimal choice of method in various scenarios.

中文翻译:

多阈值诊断准确性研究的荟萃分析:不同方法的比较

诊断测试准确性研究的标准荟萃分析方法已得到充分确立和理解。对于研究报告跨多个阈值的测试准确性的更复杂的情况,最近提出了几种方法。这些都是基于相似的想法,但做出不同的假设。在本文中,我们将四种不同的方法应用于最近肾脏病学领域系统评价的数据,并比较结果。这四种方法分别使用:线性混合效应模型、贝叶斯多项式随机效应模型、事件时间模型和非参数模型。在案例研究数据中,在不同情况下评估了中性粒细胞明胶酶相关脂质运载蛋白诊断急性肾损伤的准确性,每个主要研究中的三个阈值的敏感性和特异性估计值可用。所有方法都导致了合理且基本相似的总结结果。然而,我们发现某些场景的结果存在相当大的差异,例如,接收者操作特征曲线 (AUC) 下的面积差异高达 0.13。贝叶斯方法倾向于导致 AUC 的最高值,而非参数方法倾向于在不同场景中产生最低值。尽管我们建议使用这些方法,但我们的发现激发了对模拟研究的需求,以探索在各种情况下的最佳方法选择。受试者工作特征曲线 (AUC) 下面积的差异高达 0.13。贝叶斯方法倾向于导致 AUC 的最高值,而非参数方法倾向于在不同场景中产生最低值。尽管我们建议使用这些方法,但我们的发现激发了对模拟研究的需求,以探索在各种情况下的最佳方法选择。受试者工作特征曲线 (AUC) 下面积的差异高达 0.13。贝叶斯方法倾向于导致 AUC 的最高值,而非参数方法倾向于在不同场景中产生最低值。尽管我们建议使用这些方法,但我们的发现激发了对模拟研究的需求,以探索在各种情况下的最佳方法选择。
更新日期:2021-01-21
down
wechat
bug