A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Emmanuel Lesaffre¹  Joris Menten¹ 

[1] L-Biostat, KULeuven University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, Leuven B-3000, Belgium

关键词: Latent class model;    Bayesian statistics;    Diagnostic test accuracy;    Meta-analyses;   

Others  :  1223585
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0061-7

 received in 2014-12-04, accepted in 2015-07-28,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Selecting the most effective diagnostic method is essential for patient management and public health interventions. This requires evidence of the relative performance of alternative tests or diagnostic algorithms. Consequently, there is a need for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses allowing the comparison of the accuracy of two or more competing tests. The meta-analyses are however complicated by the paucity of studies that directly compare the performance of diagnostic tests. A second complication is that the diagnostic accuracy of the tests is usually determined through the comparison of the index test results with those of a reference standard. These reference standards are presumed to be perfect, i.e. allowing the classification of diseased and non-diseased subjects without error. In practice, this assumption is however rarely valid and most reference standards show false positive or false negative results. When an imperfect reference standard is used, the estimated accuracy of the tests of interest may be biased, as well as the comparisons between these tests.

Methods

We propose a model that allows for the comparison of the accuracy of two diagnostic tests using direct (head-to-head) comparisons as well as indirect comparisons through a third test. In addition, the model allows and corrects for imperfect reference tests. The model is inspired by mixed-treatment comparison meta-analyses that have been developed for the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. As the model is estimated using Bayesian methods, it can incorporate prior knowledge on the diagnostic accuracy of the reference tests used.

Results

We show the bias that can result from using inappropriate methods in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests and how our method provides more correct estimates of the difference in diagnostic accuracy between two tests. As an illustration, we apply this model to a dataset on visceral leishmaniasis diagnostic tests, comparing the accuracy of the RK39 dipstick with that of the direct agglutination test.

Conclusions

Our proposed meta-analytic model can improve the comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of competing tests in a systematic review. This is however only true if the studies and especially information on the reference tests used are sufficiently detailed. More specifically, the type and exact procedures used as reference tests are needed, including any cut-offs used and the number of subjects excluded from full reference test assessment. If this information is lacking, it may be better to limit the meta-analysis to direct comparisons.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Menten and Lesaffre.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ, Takwoingi Y, Macaskill P. Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Syst Rev. 2013; 2:82. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten RJPM, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Ethics. 2005; 58(10):982-90.
• [3]Takwoingi Y, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ. Empirical evidence of the importance of comparative studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158:544-54.
• [4]Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. Br Med J. 2005; 331:897-900.
• [5]Zhang J, Carlin BP, Neaton JD, GG GGS, Nie L, Kane R et al.. Network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: Reporting the proper summaries. Clin Trials. 2014; 11(2):246-62.
• [6]Pepe MS. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK); 2003.
• [7]Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. Wiley-Interscience, New-York (US); 2002.
• [8]Lesaffre E, Lawson AB. Bayesian Biostatistics (Statistics in Practice). Wiley, New-York (US); 2012.
• [9]Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy - Chapter 10: Analysing and presenting results. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0. Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. The Cochrane Collaboration, London (UK); 2010.
• [10]Menten J, Boelaert M, Lesaffre E. Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic tests allowing for imperfect reference standards. Stat Med. 2013; 32(30):5398-413.
• [11]Verde PE. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test data: a bivariate Bayesian modeling approach. Stat Med. 2010; 29:3088-102.
• [12]Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(6):683-91.
• [13]Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas SL. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med. 1995; 14:2685-699.
• [14]Lu G, Aedes AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidende in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004; 23:3105-124.
• [15]Daniels MJ, Pourahmadi M. Modeling covariance matrices via partial autocorrelations. J Multivar Anal. 2009; 100(10):2352-363.
• [16]McCutcheon AL. Latent Class Analysis. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series No. 64. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, US; 1987.
• [17]Dendukuri N, Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple tests. Biometrics. 2001; 57:158-67.
• [18]Qu Y, Tan M, Kutner MH. Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 1996; 52:797-810.
• [19]Qu Y, Hadgu A. A model for evaluating sensitivity and specificity for correlated diagnostic tests in efficacy studies with an imperfect reference test. J Am Stat Assoc. 1998; 93:920-8.
• [20]Menten J, Boelaert M, Lesaffre E. Bayesian latent class models with conditionally dependent diagnostic tests: a case study. Stat Med. 2008; 27(22):4469-488.
• [21]Dendukuri N, Hadgu A, Wang L. Modeling conditional dependence between diagnostic tests: A multiple latent variable model. Stat Med. 2009; 28:441-61.
• [22]Gelman A, Rubin DB. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci. 1992; 7:457-72.
• [23]Agresti A, Hitchcock DB. Bayesian Inference for Categorical Data Analysis: A Survey. 2005.
• [24]A. Jasra CCH, Stephens DA. Markov chain monte carlo methods and the label switching problem in bayesian mixture modeling. Stat Sci. 2005; 20(2):50-67.
• [25]Stephens M. Dealing with label switching in mixture models. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 2000; 62(1):795-809.
• [26]Berkvens D, Speybroeck N, Praet N, Adel A, Lesaffre E. Estimating disease prevalence in a Bayesian framework using probabilistic constraints. Epidemiology. 2006; 17(2):145-53.
• [27]Boelaert M, Chappuis F, Menten J, van Griensven J, Sunyoto T, Rijal S. Rapid diagnostic tests for visceral leishmaniasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 6.
• [28]Chappuis F, Rijal S, Soto A, Menten J, Boelaert M. A meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the direct agglutination test and rk39 dipstick for visceral leishmaniasis. Br Med J. 2006; 333(7571):723-6.
• [29]Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM et al.. Towards complete and,accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the stard initiative. Br Med J. 2003; 326(7379):41-4.
• [30]Chu H, Cole SR, Wei Y, Ibrahim JG. Estimation and inference for case-control studies with multiple non-gold standard exposure assessments: with an occupational health application. Biostatistics. 2009; 10:591-602.
• [31]Zhang J, Cole SR, Richardson DB, Chu H. A bayesian approach to strengthen inference for case-control studies with multiple error-prone exposure assessments. Stat Med. 2013; 32(25):4426-437.
• [32]Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56:1129-1135.
• [33]Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001; 20(19):2865-884.
• [34]Lu G, Aedes AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006; 101(474):447-59.
• [35]Caldwell DM, Welton NJ, Ades AE. Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63:875-82.
• [36]Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008; 17:279-301.
• [37]Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med. 2009; 28:1861-1881.
• [38]Zhang J, Fu H, Carlin BP. Detecting outlying trials in network meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2015; 34(Epub ahead of print):1-3.
• [39]Dias S, Welton NJ. Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2010; 176(3):613-29.
• [40]Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Meth. 2012; 3:98-110.
• [41]White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JPT. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Meth. 2012; 3:111-25.
• [42]Trikalinos TA, Hoaglin DC, Small KM, Terrin N, Schmid CH. Methods for the joint meta-analysis of multiple tests. Res Synth Meth. 2014; 5:294-312.