Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
An evaluation of computational methods for aggregate data meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Zhao, Yixin; Khan, Bilal; Negeri, Zelalem F.
Afiliação
  • Zhao Y; Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Ontario, Canada.
  • Khan B; Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Ontario, Canada.
  • Negeri ZF; Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Ontario, Canada. znegeri@uwaterloo.ca.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 24(1): 111, 2024 May 10.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38730436
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) is recommended to meta-analyze diagnostic test accuracy studies (DTAs) based on aggregate or individual participant data. Since a GLMM does not have a closed-form likelihood function or parameter solutions, computational methods are conventionally used to approximate the likelihoods and obtain parameter estimates. The most commonly used computational methods are the Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares (IRLS), the Laplace approximation (LA), and the Adaptive Gauss-Hermite quadrature (AGHQ). Despite being widely used, it has not been clear how these computational methods compare and perform in the context of an aggregate data meta-analysis (ADMA) of DTAs.

METHODS:

We compared and evaluated the performance of three commonly used computational methods for GLMM - the IRLS, the LA, and the AGHQ, via a comprehensive simulation study and real-life data examples, in the context of an ADMA of DTAs. By varying several parameters in our simulations, we assessed the performance of the three methods in terms of bias, root mean squared error, confidence interval (CI) width, coverage of the 95% CI, convergence rate, and computational speed.

RESULTS:

For most of the scenarios, especially when the meta-analytic data were not sparse (i.e., there were no or negligible studies with perfect diagnosis), the three computational methods were comparable for the estimation of sensitivity and specificity. However, the LA had the largest bias and root mean squared error for pooled sensitivity and specificity when the meta-analytic data were sparse. Moreover, the AGHQ took a longer computational time to converge relative to the other two methods, although it had the best convergence rate.

CONCLUSIONS:

We recommend practitioners and researchers carefully choose an appropriate computational algorithm when fitting a GLMM to an ADMA of DTAs. We do not recommend the LA for sparse meta-analytic data sets. However, either the AGHQ or the IRLS can be used regardless of the characteristics of the meta-analytic data.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Simulação por Computador / Metanálise como Assunto / Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Simulação por Computador / Metanálise como Assunto / Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article