In this paper, a trivariate generalized non linear mixed model (TGLMM) using probit and complementary log-log transformations, is considered. These models are helpful in studying the complex relationship among the sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP) and disease prevalence (DP). For estimation of SN, SP, DP, positive (negative) predictive values (PPV and NPV) and positive (negative) likelihood ratios, Non-linear Mixed (NLMIXED) approach has been used. Model selection techniques are used to identify the best-fitting model for making statistical inference. The proposed trivariate non linear random effects models prove to be very useful in practice for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.
BurnhamK. P., & AndersonD. R. (1998). Model selection and inference: A practical information-theoretic approach.
2.
ChuH.NieL.ColeS. R., & PooleC. (2009). Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: Alternative parameterizations and model selection. Statistics in Medicine, 28(18), 2384-2399.
3.
ChuH. G. H. (2009). Letter to the editor. Biostatistics, 10(1), 201-203.
4.
EggerM.Davey-SmithG., & AltmanD. (2008). Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. John Wiley & Sons.
5.
GouldM. K.MacleanC. C.KuschnerW. G.RydzakC. E., & OwensD. K. (2001). Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: A meta-analysis. JAMA, 285(7), 914-924.
MacaskillP. (2004). Empirical bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary roc analysis agreed closely with those of a full bayesian analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(9), 925-932.
8.
MallettS.DeeksJ. J.HalliganS.HopewellS.CorneliusV., and AltmanD. G. (2006). Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: Review of methods and reporting. BMJ, 333(7565), 413.
9.
PepeM. S. (2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press, USA.
10.
PinheiroJ. C., & BatesD. M. (1995). Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 4(1), 12-35.
11.
ReitsmaJ. B.GlasA. S.RutjesA. W.ScholtenR. J.BossuytP. M., and ZwindermanA. H. (2005). Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(10), 982-990.
12.
RileyR. D.AbramsK. R.SuttonA. J.LambertP. C., & ThompsonJ. R. (2007). Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 1.
13.
RileyR. D.ThompsonJ. R., & AbramsK. R. (2008). An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics, 9(1), 172-186.
14.
RutterC. M., & GatsonisC. A. (2001). A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Statistics in Medicine, 20(19), 2865-2884.
15.
SongF.KhanK. S.DinnesJ., & SuttonA. J. (2002). Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(1), 88-95.
16.
HouwelingenH. C.ArendsL. R., & StijnenT. (2002). Advanced methods in meta-analysis: Multivariate approach and meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine, 21(4), 589-624.
17.
ZhouX. H.McClishD. K., & ObuchowskiN. A. (2009). Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine, volume 569. John Wiley & Sons.
18.
ZwindermanA. H., & BossuytP. M. (2008). We should not pool diagnostic likelihood ratios in systematic reviews. Statistics in Medicine, 27(5), 687-697.
