Paper detail

A likelihood based sensitivity analysis for publication bias on summary ROC in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

In meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) is a recommended method to summarize the discriminant capacity of a diagnostic test in the presence of study-specific cutoff values and the area under the SROC (SAUC) gives the aggregate measure of test accuracy. SROC or SAUC can be estimated by bivariate modelling of pairs of sensitivity and specificity over the primary diagnostic studies. However, publication bias is a major threat to the validity of estimates in meta-analysis. To address this issue, we propose to adopt sensitivity analysis to make an objective inference for the impact of publication bias on SROC or SAUC. We extend Copas likelihood based sensitivity analysis to the bivariate normal model used for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy to evaluate how much SROC or SAUC would change with different selection probabilities under several selective publication mechanisms dependent on sensitivity and/or specificity. The selection probability is modelled by a selection function on $t$-type statistic for the linear combination of logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity, allowing the selective publication of each study to be influenced by the cutoff-dependent $p$-value for sensitivity, specificity, or diagnostic odds ratio. By embedding the selection function into the bivariate normal model, the conditional likelihood is proposed and the bias-corrected SROC or SAUC can be estimated by maximizing the likelihood. We illustrate the proposed sensitivity analysis by reanalyzing a meta-analysis of test accuracy for intravascular device related infection. Simulation studies are conducted to investigate the performance of proposed methods.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.