Cargando…
A trivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic studies accounting for prevalence and non-evaluable subjects: re-evaluation of the meta-analysis of coronary CT angiography studies
BACKGROUND: A recent paper proposed an intent-to-diagnose approach to handle non-evaluable index test results and discussed several alternative approaches, with an application to the meta-analysis of coronary CT angiography diagnostic accuracy studies. However, no simulation studies have been conduc...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4280699/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25475705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-128 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: A recent paper proposed an intent-to-diagnose approach to handle non-evaluable index test results and discussed several alternative approaches, with an application to the meta-analysis of coronary CT angiography diagnostic accuracy studies. However, no simulation studies have been conducted to test the performance of the methods. METHODS: We propose an extended trivariate generalized linear mixed model (TGLMM) to handle non-evaluable index test results. The performance of the intent-to-diagnose approach, the alternative approaches and the extended TGLMM approach is examined by extensive simulation studies. The meta-analysis of coronary CT angiography diagnostic accuracy studies is re-evaluated by the extended TGLMM. RESULTS: Simulation studies showed that the intent-to-diagnose approach under-estimate sensitivity and specificity. Under the missing at random (MAR) assumption, the TGLMM gives nearly unbiased estimates of test accuracy indices and disease prevalence. After applying the TGLMM approach to re-evaluate the coronary CT angiography meta-analysis, overall median sensitivity is 0.98 (0.967, 0.993), specificity is 0.875 (0.827, 0.923) and disease prevalence is 0.478 (0.379, 0.577). CONCLUSIONS: Under MAR assumption, the intent-to-diagnose approach under-estimate both sensitivity and specificity, while the extended TGLMM gives nearly unbiased estimates of sensitivity, specificity and prevalence. We recommend the extended TGLMM to handle non-evaluable index test subjects. |
---|