Copas-like selection model to correct publication bias in systematic review of diagnostic test studies

Abstract

The accuracy of a diagnostic test, which is often quantified by a pair of measures such as sensitivity and specificity, is critical for medical decision making. Separate studies of an investigational diagnostic test can be combined through meta-analysis; however, such an analysis can be threatened by publication bias. To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing method that accounts for publication bias in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests involving bivariate outcomes. In this paper, we extend the Copas selection model from univariate outcomes to bivariate outcomes for the correction of publication bias when the probability of a study being published can depend on its sensitivity, specificity, and the associated standard errors. We develop an expectation-maximization algorithm for the maximum likelihood estimation under the proposed selection model. We investigate the finite sample performance of the proposed method through simulation studies and illustrate the method by assessing a meta-analysis of 17 published studies of a rapid diagnostic test for influenza.

Keywords

Copas selection model diagnostic test accuracy linear mixed model meta-analysis systematic reviews

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Reitsma

Glas

Rutjes

, et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 982–990.

Chu

Cole

. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1331–1331.

Rutter

Gatsonis

. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 2001; 20: 2865–2884.

Harbord

Deeks

Egger

, et al. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 2007; 8: 239–251.

Nie

Cole

, et al. Statistical methods for multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: an overview and tutorial. Stat Meth Med Res 2016; 25: 1596–1619.

Hattori

Zhou

X-H

. Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analysis of diagnostic studies for a continuous biomarker. Stat Med 2018; 37: 327–342.

Rothstein

Sutton

Borenstein

. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.

Dickersin K. Publication bias: recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, (eds). Publication bias in meta-analysis–Prevention, assessment and adjustments. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.

Light

Pillemer

. Summing up: The science of research reviewing, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

10.

Begg

Mazumdar

. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088–1101.

11.

Egger

Smith

Schneider

, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629–634.

12.

Duval

Tweedie

. A nonparametric trim and fill method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 2000; 95: 89–98.

13.

Duval

Tweedie

. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455–463.

14.

Copas

. Inference for non-random samples. J Royal Stat Soc: Ser B (Stat Methodol) 1997; 59: 55–95.

15.

Copas

. What works?: selectivity models and meta-analysis. J Royal Stat Soc: Ser A (Stat Soc) 1999; 162: 95–109.

16.

Copas

Shi

. Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 247–262.

17.

Copas

Shi

. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Stat Meth Med Res 2001; 10: 251–265.

18.

Ning

Chen

Piao

. Maximum likelihood estimation and EM algorithm of Copas-like selection model for publication bias correction. Biostatistics 2017; 18: 495–504.

19.

Mavridis

Sutton

Cipriani

, et al. A fully Bayesian application of the Copas selection model for publication bias extended to network meta-analysis. Stat Med 2013; 32: 51–66.

20.

Song

Eastwood

Gilbody

, et al. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4: 1–1.

21.

Xing

Bronstein

Ross

, et al. Contemporary diagnostic imaging modalities for the staging and surveillance of melanoma patients: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 129–142.

22.

Glas

Lijmer

Prins

, et al. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1129–1135.

23.

Deeks

Macaskill

Irwig

. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 882–893.

24.

Macaskill

Walter

Irwig

. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2001; 20: 641–654.

25.

Bürkner

P-C

Doebler

. Testing for publication bias in diagnostic meta-analysis: a simulation study. Stat Med 2014; 33: 3061–3077.

26.

Louis

. Finding the observed information matrix when using the EM algorithm. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 1982; 44: 226–233.

27.

World Health Organization and others. Influenza (seasonal) fact sheet http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal) (accessed 24 July 2018).

28.

Chartrand

Leeflang

Minion

, et al. Accuracy of rapid influenza diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 500–511.

29.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others, Rapid diagnostic testing for influenza: information for clinical laboratory directors, http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/rapidlab.htm (accessed 8 March 2011).

30.

Douglas

. Confidence regions for parameter pairs. Am Stat 1993; 47: 43–45.

31.

Peters

Sutton

Jones

, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 2006; 295: 676–680.

32.

Reitsma

Zwinderman

. Response to Chu and Cole: bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1332–1333.

33.

Chu

Guo

Zhou

. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic studies using generalized linear mixed models. Med Decis Making 2009; 30: 2009–2009.

34.

Mavridis

Welton

Sutton

Salanti

. A selection model for accounting for publication bias in a full network meta-analysis. Stat Med 2014; 33: 5399–5412.

35.

Sadatsafavi

Shahidi

Marra

, et al. A statistical method was used for the meta-analysis of tests for latent TB in the absence of a gold standard, combining random-effect and latent-class methods to estimate test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 257–269.

36.

Chu

Chen

Louis

. Random effects models in a meta-analysis of the accuracy of two diagnostic tests without a gold standard. J Am Stat Assoc 2009; 104: 512–523.

37.

Dendukuri

Schiller

Joseph

, et al. Bayesian meta-analysis of the accuracy of a test for tuberculous pleuritis in the absence of a gold standard reference. Biometrics 2012; 68: 1285–1293.

38.

Liu

Chen

Chu

. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies without a gold standard. Biometrics 2015; 71: 538–547.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB