Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

Latent class bivariate model for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Several types of statistical methods are currently available for the meta-analysis of studies on diagnostic test accuracy. One of these methods is the Bivariate Model which involves a simultaneous analysis of the sensitivity and specificity from a set of studies. In this paper, we review the characteristics of the Bivariate Model and demonstrate how it can be extended with a discrete latent variable. The resulting clustering of studies yields additional insight into the accuracy of the test of interest.

Methods

A Latent Class Bivariate Model is proposed. This model captures the between-study variability in sensitivity and specificity by assuming that studies belong to one of a small number of latent classes. This yields both an easier to interpret and a more precise description of the heterogeneity between studies. Latent classes may not only differ with respect to the average sensitivity and specificity, but also with respect to the correlation between sensitivity and specificity.

Results

The Latent Class Bivariate Model identifies clusters of studies with their own estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Our simulation study demonstrated excellent parameter recovery and good performance of the model selection statistics typically used in latent class analysis. Application in a real data example on coronary artery disease showed that the inclusion of latent classes yields interesting additional information.

Conclusions

Our proposed new meta-analysis method can lead to a better fit of the data set of interest, less biased estimates and more reliable confidence intervals for sensitivities and specificities. But even more important, it may serve as an exploratory tool for subsequent sub-group meta-analyses.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Bossuyt PM, Bruns DE, Reitsma JB, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, De Vet HCW: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the stard initiative. BMJ. 2003, 326: 41-44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bossuyt PM, Bruns DE, Reitsma JB, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, De Vet HCW: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the stard initiative. BMJ. 2003, 326: 41-44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, Lau J: Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med. 2005, 142 (12): 1048-1055.CrossRefPubMed Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, Lau J: Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med. 2005, 142 (12): 1048-1055.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Littenberg B, Moses LE: Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making. 1993, 13 (4): 313-321.CrossRefPubMed Littenberg B, Moses LE: Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making. 1993, 13 (4): 313-321.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993, 12 (14): 1293-1316.CrossRefPubMed Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993, 12 (14): 1293-1316.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Van Houwelingen HC, Zwinderman KH, Stijnen T: A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1993, 12 (24): 2273-2284.CrossRefPubMed Van Houwelingen HC, Zwinderman KH, Stijnen T: A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1993, 12 (24): 2273-2284.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA: A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001, 20 (19): 2865-2884.CrossRefPubMed Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA: A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001, 20 (19): 2865-2884.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Dukic V, Gatsonis CA: Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy assessment studies with varying number of thresholdss. Biometrics. 2003, 59 (4): 936-946.CrossRefPubMed Dukic V, Gatsonis CA: Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy assessment studies with varying number of thresholdss. Biometrics. 2003, 59 (4): 936-946.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
go back to reference Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58 (10): 982-990.CrossRefPubMed Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58 (10): 982-990.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Rücker G, Schumacher M: Summary roc curve based on the weighted youden index for selecting an optimal cutpoint in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Stat Med. 2010, 29 (30): 3069-3078.CrossRefPubMed Rücker G, Schumacher M: Summary roc curve based on the weighted youden index for selecting an optimal cutpoint in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Stat Med. 2010, 29 (30): 3069-3078.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH: Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002, 21 (11): 1525-1537.CrossRefPubMed Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH: Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002, 21 (11): 1525-1537.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Walter SD: Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (sroc) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med. 2002, 21 (9): 1237-1256.CrossRefPubMed Walter SD: Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (sroc) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med. 2002, 21 (9): 1237-1256.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y: Chapter: Analysing and presenting results. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Edited by: Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C. 2010, New York: The Cochrane Collaboration, 1-61. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y: Chapter: Analysing and presenting results. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Edited by: Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C. 2010, New York: The Cochrane Collaboration, 1-61.
17.
go back to reference Chu H, Cole S: Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59 (12): 1331-1332.CrossRefPubMed Chu H, Cole S: Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59 (12): 1331-1332.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T: Random effects meta analysis of proportions: The binomial distribution should be used to model the within study variability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61 (1): 41-51.CrossRefPubMed Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T: Random effects meta analysis of proportions: The binomial distribution should be used to model the within study variability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61 (1): 41-51.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Chu H, Nie L, Cole S, Poole C: Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic studies using generalized linear mixed models. Med Decis Making. 2010, 30 (4): 499-508.CrossRefPubMed Chu H, Nie L, Cole S, Poole C: Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic studies using generalized linear mixed models. Med Decis Making. 2010, 30 (4): 499-508.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Chu H, Nie L, Cole S, Poole C: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: Alternative parameterizations and model selection. Stat Med. 2009, 28 (18): 2384-2399.CrossRefPubMed Chu H, Nie L, Cole S, Poole C: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: Alternative parameterizations and model selection. Stat Med. 2009, 28 (18): 2384-2399.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Verde PE: Meta-analysis of diagnostic test data: a bivariate bayesian modeling approach. Stat Med. 2010, 29 (30): 3088-3102.CrossRefPubMed Verde PE: Meta-analysis of diagnostic test data: a bivariate bayesian modeling approach. Stat Med. 2010, 29 (30): 3088-3102.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Paul M, Riebler A, Bachmann LM, Rue H, Held L: Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using integrated nested laplace approximations. Stat Med. 2010, 29 (12): 1325-1339.CrossRefPubMed Paul M, Riebler A, Bachmann LM, Rue H, Held L: Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using integrated nested laplace approximations. Stat Med. 2010, 29 (12): 1325-1339.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JAC: A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies biostatistics. Biostatistics. 2007, 8 (2): 239-251.CrossRefPubMed Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JAC: A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies biostatistics. Biostatistics. 2007, 8 (2): 239-251.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Arends LR, Hamza TH, van Houwelingen JC, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG, Stijnen T: Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of roc curves. Med Decis Making. 2008, 28 (5): 621-638.CrossRefPubMed Arends LR, Hamza TH, van Houwelingen JC, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG, Stijnen T: Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of roc curves. Med Decis Making. 2008, 28 (5): 621-638.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Goetghebeur E, Liinev J, Boelaert M, Van der Stuyft P: Diagnostic test analyses in search of their gold standard: latent class analyses with random effects. Stat Methods Med Res. 2000, 9 (3): 231-248.CrossRefPubMed Goetghebeur E, Liinev J, Boelaert M, Van der Stuyft P: Diagnostic test analyses in search of their gold standard: latent class analyses with random effects. Stat Methods Med Res. 2000, 9 (3): 231-248.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Pepe P, Janes H: Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance. Biostatistics. 2007, 8 (2): 474-484.CrossRefPubMed Pepe P, Janes H: Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance. Biostatistics. 2007, 8 (2): 474-484.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference van Smeden M, Naaktgeboren CA, Reitsma JB, Moons KG: Latent class models in diagnostic studies when there is no reference standard - a systematic review. Am J Epidemiol. 2014, 179 (4): 423-431.CrossRefPubMed van Smeden M, Naaktgeboren CA, Reitsma JB, Moons KG: Latent class models in diagnostic studies when there is no reference standard - a systematic review. Am J Epidemiol. 2014, 179 (4): 423-431.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Goodman LA: Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika. 1998, 61 (2): 215-231.CrossRef Goodman LA: Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika. 1998, 61 (2): 215-231.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Schuetz GM, Zacharopoulou NM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M: Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2010, 152 (3): 167-177.CrossRefPubMed Schuetz GM, Zacharopoulou NM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M: Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2010, 152 (3): 167-177.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Vermunt JK, Magidson J: LG-Syntax user’s guide: Manual for Latent GOLD 4.5 Syntax module. Technical Report. 2008, Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Vermunt JK, Magidson J: LG-Syntax user’s guide: Manual for Latent GOLD 4.5 Syntax module. Technical Report. 2008, Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations
31.
go back to reference Lin TH, Dayton CM: Model selection information criteria for non-nested latent class models. J Educ Behav Stat. 1997, 22 (3): 249-264.CrossRef Lin TH, Dayton CM: Model selection information criteria for non-nested latent class models. J Educ Behav Stat. 1997, 22 (3): 249-264.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Leeflang MM, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM: Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ. 2013, 185 (11): 537-544.CrossRef Leeflang MM, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM: Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ. 2013, 185 (11): 537-544.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Latent class bivariate model for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies
Publication date
01-12-2014
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-88

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014 Go to the issue