Letter to the editor
Open Access
- 23 May 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Biostatistics
- Vol. 10 (1), 201-203
- https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxn040
Abstract
We congratulate Harbord and others (2007) for identifying the very closely related and sometimes identical relationship between the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model (Rutter and Gatsonis, 2001) and the bivariate random-effects meta-analysis (Van Houwelingen and others, 2002; Macaskill, 2004; Reitsma and others, 2005; Chu and Cole, 2006) from a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. However, the formulas for constructing the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve from the HSROC model presented in equation (5.1) by Harbord and others (2007), in p. 2870 by Rutter and Gatsonis (2001), and in p. 927 by Macaskill (2004) are incorrect and potentially misleading.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approachJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studiesBiostatistics, 2006
- Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004
- Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regressionStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluationsStatistics in Medicine, 2001
- Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis.1997
- Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysisJAMA, 1997