RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS IN A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WITHIN A GOLD STANDARD IN THE PRESENCE OF MISSING DATA

In evaluating the accuracy of diagnosis tests, it is common to apply two imperfect tests jointly or sequentially to a study population. In a recent meta-analysis of the accuracy of microsatellite instability testing (MSI) and traditional mutation analysis (MUT) in predicting germline mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, a Bayesian approach (Chen, Watson, and Parmigiani 2005) was proposed to handle missing data resulting from partial testing and the lack of a gold standard. In this paper, we demonstrate an improved estimation of the sensitivities and specificities of MSI and MUT by using a nonlinear mixed model and a Bayesian hierarchical model, both of which account for the heterogeneity across studies through study-specific random effects. The methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of two imperfect diagnostic tests in other meta-analyses when the prevalence of disease, the sensitivities and/or the specificities of diagnostic tests are heterogeneous among studies. Furthermore, simulation studies have demonstrated the importance of carefully selecting appropriate random effects on the estimation of diagnostic accuracy measurements in this scenario.

Quantifying and Comparing the Accuracy of Binary Biomarkers When Predicting a Failure Time Outcome

The positive and negative predictive value are standard measures used to quantify the predictive accuracy of binary biomarkers when the outcome being predicted is also binary. When the biomarkers are instead being used to predict a failure time outcome, there is no standard way of quantifying predictive accuracy. We propose a natural extension of the traditional predictive values to accommodate censored survival data. We discuss not only quantifying predictive accuracy using these extended predictive values, but also rigorously comparing the accuracy of two biomarkers in terms of their predictive values. Using a marginal regression framework, we describe how to estimate differences in predictive accuracy and how to test whether the observed difference is statistically significant.