On composite likelihood in bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

被引:0
作者
Aristidis K. Nikoloulopoulos
机构
[1] University of East Anglia,School of Computing Sciences
来源
AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis | 2018年 / 102卷
关键词
Copula mixed model; Diagnostic odds ratio; Generalized linear mixed model; Sensitivity/specificity; SROC;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The composite likelihood is amongst the computational methods used for estimation of the generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) in the context of bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Its advantage is that the likelihood can be derived conveniently under the assumption of independence between the random effects, but there has not been a clear analysis of the merit or necessity of this method. For synthesis of diagnostic test accuracy studies, a copula mixed model has been proposed in the biostatistics literature. This general model includes the GLMM as a special case and can also allow for flexible dependence modelling, different from assuming simple linear correlation structures, normality and tail independence in the joint tails. A maximum likelihood (ML) method, which is based on evaluating the bi-dimensional integrals of the likelihood with quadrature methods, has been proposed, and in fact it eases any computational difficulty that might be caused by the double integral in the likelihood function. Both methods are thoroughly examined with extensive simulations and illustrated with data of a published meta-analysis. It is shown that the ML method has no non-convergence issues or computational difficulties and at the same time allows estimation of the dependence between study-specific sensitivity and specificity and thus prediction via summary receiver operating curves.
引用
收藏
页码:211 / 227
页数:16
相关论文
共 56 条
  • [1] Arends LR(2008)Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves Med. Decis. Mak. 28 621-638
  • [2] Hamza TH(2016)Meta-analysis of studies with bivariate binary outcomes: a marginal beta-binomial model approach Stat. Med. 35 21-40
  • [3] van Houwelingen JC(2017)A composite likelihood method for bivariate meta-analysis in diagnostic systematic reviews Stat. Methods Med. Res. 26 914-930
  • [4] Heijenbrok-Kal MH(2006)Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59 1331-1332
  • [5] Hunink MGM(2012)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. 21 621-633
  • [6] Stijnen T(2003)The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance J. Clin. Epidemiol. 56 1129-1135
  • [7] Chen Y(2003)Tumor markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer. a systematic review J. Urol. 169 1975-1982
  • [8] Hong C(2011)Multivariate meta-analysis: potential and promise Stat. Med. 30 2481-2498
  • [9] Ning Y(2016)Statistical methods for multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: an overview and tutorial Stat. Methods Med. Res. 25 1596-1619
  • [10] Su X(2013)A practical introduction to multivariate meta-analysis Stat. Methods Med. Res. 22 133-158