Synthesizing Evidence

  • Paul-Christian Bürkner


Synthesizing evidence of diagnostic studies comes with more complications than synthesizing evidence of clinical trials. This is because the performance of diagnostic tests is evaluated for participants who have the target condition as well as for participants who do not have the target condition, usually in terms of sensitivity and specificity, respectively. There is a natural trade-off between sensitivity and specificity as lowering the threshold, at which participants will be diagnosed as positive, will increase sensitivity but at the same time reduce specificity. Thus, appropriate methods for diagnostic meta-analysis deal with pairs of sensitivity and specificity to preserve the bivariate nature of diagnostic accuracy. In the present chapter, we present a number of approaches to diagnostic meta-analysis and focus on the most commonly applied methods that are able to incorporate systematic variation between studies in addition to differences in the applied thresholds.



I want to thank Prof. Philipp Doebler and Prof. Gerta Rücker for their very helpful comments on this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM. We should not pool diagnostic likelihood ratios in systematic reviews. Stat Med. 2008;27:687–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gatsonis C, Paliwal P. Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:271–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20:2865–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Macaskill P. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary roc analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:925–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Houwelingen HC, Zwinderman KH, Stijnen T. A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1993;12:2273–84.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002;21:589–624.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 Epidemiol. 2005;58:982–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chu H, Cole SR. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1331–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med. 2004;23:1351–75.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JAC. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2007;8:239–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arends LR, Hamza H, Van Houwelingen HC, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MGM, Stijnen T. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of roc curves. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28:621–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen Y, Liu Y, Ning J, Nie L, Zhu H, Chu H. A composite likelihood method for bivariate meta-analysis in diagnostic systematic reviews. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017;26:914–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Annamaria Guolo. A double simex approach for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holling H, Böhning W, Böhning D. Meta-analysis of diagnostic studies based upon sroc-curves: a mixed model approach using the Lehmann family. Stat Model. 2012;12:347–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rücker G, Schumacher M. Summary roc curve based on a weighted Youden index for selecting an optimal cutpoint in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Stat Med. 2010;29:3069–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martínez-Camblor P. Fully non-parametric receiver operating characteristic curve estimation for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017;26:5–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zapf A, Hoyer A, Kramer K, Kuss O. Nonparametric meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies. Stat Med. 2015;34:3831–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doebler P, Holling H. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and roc curves with covariate adjusted semiparametric mixtures. Psychometrika. 2015;80:1084–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuss O, Hoyer A, Solms A. Meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies: a new statistical model using beta-binomial distributions and bivariate copulas. Stat Med. 2014;33:17–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PMM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul-Christian Bürkner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Psychology, University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations