The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 41-51

  Hamza, Taye H ^a   van Houwelingen, Hans C ^b   Stijnen, Theo ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Diagnostic tests; Exact binomial; Meta analysis; Random effects; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS;

EID: 36849058782     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.016     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Irwig L., Tosteson A.N.A., Gatsonis C., Lau J., Colditz G., Chalmers T.C., et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 120 (1994) 667-676
2. Lijmer J.G., Bossuyt P.M.M., and Heisterkamp S.H. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 21 (2002) 1525-1537
3. Thompson S.G., and Higgins J.P.T. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted. Stat Med 21 (2002) 1559-1573
4. Hardy R.J., and Thompson S.G. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 17 (1998) 841-856
5. Berkey C.S., Hoaglin D.C., Mosteller F., and Colditz G.A. A random-effect regression model for meta-analysis. Stat Med 4 (1995) 395-411
6. DerSimonian R., and Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7 (1986) 177-188
7. Arends L.R., Voko Z., and Stijnen T. Combining multiple outcome measures in meta-analysis: an application. Stat Med 22 (2003) 1335-1353
8. Van Houwelingen H.C., Arends L.R., and Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 21 (2002) 589-624
9. Rutter C.M., and Gatsonis C.A. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 20 (2001) 2865-2884
10. Reitsma J.B., Glas A.S., Rutjes A.W.S., Scholten R.J.P.M., Bossuyt P.M., and Zwinderman A.H. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 982-990
11. Chang B.H., Waternaux C., and Lipsitz S. Meta-analysis of binary data: which study variance estimate to use?. Stat Med 20 (2001) 1947-1956
12. Platt R.W., Leroux B.G., and Breslow N. Generalized linear mixed models for meta-analysis. Stat med 14 (1999) 395-411
13. Cox D.R. The analysis of binary data (1970), Methuen, London
14. Moses L.E., Shapiro D., and Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12 (1993) 1293-1316
15. Turner R.M., Omar R.Z., Yang M., Goldstein H., and Thompson S.G. A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 19 (2000) 3417-3432
16. Knapp G., Biggerstaff B.J., and Hartung J. Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis. Biom J 48 (2006) 271-285
17. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT 9.1 user's guide (2004), SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
18. Rasbash J., Steele F., Browne W., and Prosse B. A user's guide to MLwiN (2004), Centre for Multilevel Modelling, version 2.0. London: Institute of Education
19. Mol B.W.J., Lijmer J.G., Ankum W.M., van der Veen F., and Bossuyt P.M.M. The accuracy of single serum progesterone measurement in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Human Reproduction 13 (1998) 3220-3232
20. Cruciani M., Nardi S., Malena M., Bosco O., Serpelloni G., and Mengoli C. Systematic review of the accuracy of the ParaSightTM-F test in the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Med Sci Monit 10 (2004) MT81-MT88
21. Bipat S., Glas A.S., Slors F.J.M., Zwinderman A.H.., Bossuyt P.M.M., and Stoker J. Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging-a meta-analysis. Radiology 232 (2004) 773-783
22. Stengel D., Bauwens K., Rademacher G., Mutze S., and Ekkernkamp A. Association between compliance with methodological standards of diagnostic research and reported test accuracy: meta-analysis of focused assessment of US for trauma. Radiology 236 (2005) 102-111
23. Cruciani M., Marcati P., Malena M., Bosco O., Serpelloni G., and Mengoli C. Meta-analysis of diagnostic procedures for Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia in HIV-1-infected patients. Eur Respir J 20 (2002) 982-989
24. Cox D.R., and Hinkley D.V. Theoretical statistics (1974), Chapman and Hall, London
25. van Houwelingen H.C., Zwinderman K.H., and Stijnen T. A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med 12 (1993) 2273-2284
26. Brockwell S.E., and Gordon R. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med 20 (2001) 825-840
27. Sidik K. Simple heterogeneity variance estimation for meta-analysis. Appl Stat 54 (2005) 367-384
28. Hardy R.J., and Thompson S.G. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects. Stat Med 15 (1996) 619-629
29. Roger J.H., and Kenward M.G. Repeated measures using proc mixed instead of proc glm. Proceedings of the First Annual South-East SAS Users Group conference (1993), SAS Institute, Cary NC 199-208
30. Welham S.J., and Thompson R. Likelihood ratio tests for fixed model terms using residual maximum likelihood. J R Statist Soc B 59 (1997) 701-714
31. Sidik K., and Jonkman J.N. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Stat Med. 26 (2007) 1964-1981
32. Thompson S.G., and Sharp S.J. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 18 (1999) 2693-2708
33. Patwardhan M.B., McCrory D.C., Matchar D.B., Samsa G.P., and Rutschmann O.T. Alzheimer disease: operating characteristics of PET a meta-analysis. Radiology 231 (2004) 73-80
34. Carlin J.B., and Wolfe R. A case study on the choice, interpretation and checking of multilevel models for longitudinal binary outcomes. Biostatistics 2 (2001) 397-416
35. Sweeting M.J., Sutton A.J., and Lambert P.C. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med 23 (2004) 1351-1375
36. Bradburn M.J., Deeks J.J., Berlin J.A., and Localio A.R. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med 26 (2007) 53-77
37. Fernandez C., and Steel M.F.G. On Bayesian modeling of fat tails and skewness. J Am Statist Assoc 93 (1998) 359-371
38. Harbord R.M., Deeks J.J., Egger M., Whiting P., and Sterne J.A.C. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 1 (2006) 1-21
39. Smith T.C., Spiegelhalter D.J., and Thomas A. Bayesian approach to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med 14 (1995) 2685-2699
40. Spiegelhalter D., Thomas A., Best N., and Lunn D. WinBUGS user manual, version 1.4.1 (2004), MRC Biostatistics unit, Cambridge. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs Available at