IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i5p692-701.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bivariate Random-Effects Meta-analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity with the Bayesian SAS PROC MCMC

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Menke

Abstract

Background and Objective: Meta-analysis allows for summarizing the sensitivities and specificities from several primary diagnostic test accuracy studies quantitatively. This article presents and evaluates a full Bayesian method for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC MCMC. Methods: First, the formula of the bivariate random-effects model is presented. Then its implementation with the Bayesian SAS PROC MCMC is empirically evaluated, using the published 2 × 2 count data of 50 meta-analyses. The convergence of the Markov chains is analyzed visually and qualitatively. The results are compared with a Bayesian WinBUGS approach, using the Bland-Altman analysis for assessing agreement between 2 methods. Results: The 50 meta-analyses covered broad ranges of pooled sensitivity (17.4% to 98.8%) and specificity (60.0% to 99.7%), and the between-study heterogeneity varied as well. In all meta-analyses, the Markov chains converged well. The meta-analytic results from the SAS PROC MCMC and the WinBUGS random-effects approaches were nearly similar, showing close 95% limits of agreement for the pooled sensitivity (–0.06% to 0.05%) and specificity (–0.05% to 0.05%) without significant differences (P > 0.05). This indicates that the bivariate model is well implemented with both different statistical programs, without systematic differences arising from program attributes. Conclusions: As alternative to a WinBUGS approach, the Bayesian SAS PROC MCMC is well suited for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Menke, 2013. "Bivariate Random-Effects Meta-analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity with the Bayesian SAS PROC MCMC," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 692-701, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:5:p:692-701
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13475719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13475719
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13475719?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:5:p:692-701. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.