536REVISTA INVESTIGACION OPERACIONAL VOL. 39 , NO. 4, 536-544, 2018AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE COCHRAN-(Q) STATISTIC FOR ANALYSIS OF HETEROGENEITY IN META-ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS BASED ON HJ BIPLOT

  1. Sergio Hernández-González 1
  2. Sergio A. Bauz-Olvera 2
  3. Ma. Purificación Galindo-Villardón 3
  4. Johny J. Pambabay-Calero 4
  5. Ana B. Nieto-Librero 3
  1. 1 Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, México
  2. 2 Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Guayaquil, Ecuador
  3. 3 Dpto. de Estadística, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, España. Instituto de Investigación Biomédica (IBSAL), Salamanca, España.
  4. 4 Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Matemáticas, Guayaquil, Ecuador
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
Investigación Operacional

ISSN: 2224- 5405

Año de publicación: 2019

Volumen: 39

Número: 4

Páginas: 536-544

Tipo: Artículo

GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Resumen

T he possible heterogeneity among individual studies constituting a meta - analysis is traditionally evaluated using Cochran Q and Higgins I 2 statistics. However, both indices have deficiencies: The Q statistic detects heterogeneity but does not allow its quantification, whereas the I 2 index allows for quantification of h eterogeneity but does not indicate which studies are responsible for it. This problem is solved by additionally using the HJ biplot of the matrix containing the information about true positi ves, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives for each study. This means that the information contained in such a tetrachoric table contains the joint frequency distribution of the true classification of the disease and that provided by the diagnostic test. MSC: 62H30 KEYWORDS: Meta - analysis, effect size, heterogeneity, Q - statistic, I 2 index, HJ biplot `

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ARENDS, L., HAMZA, T., VAN HOUWELINGEN, J., HEIJENBROK-KAL, M., HUNINK, M., & STIJNEN, T. (2008). Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of roc curves. Medical Decision Making, 28, 621-638.
  • COCHRAN, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10, 101-129.
  • CORNWELL, J. M. (1993). Monte Carlo comparisons of three tests for homogeneity of independent correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 605-618.
  • DEEKS, J. J., ALTMAN, D. G., & BRADBURN, M. J. (2008). Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context, Second Edition, 285-312.
  • DOEBLER, P., HOLLING, H., & BÖHNING, D. (2012). A mixed model approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies with binary test outcome. Psychological Methods, 17, 418.
  • EGGER, M., DAVEY-SMITH, G., & ALTMAN, D. (Eds.). (2008). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. John Wiley & Sons, N. York.
  • GABRIEL, K. R. (1971). The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika,58, 453-467.
  • GALINDO VILLARDÓN, M. (1986). Una alternativa de representación simultanea: Hj-biplot. Qüestiió. quaderns d'estadística i investigació operativa, 10(1), 13-23.
  • HARBORD, R. M., DEEKS, J. J., EGGER, M., WHITING, P., & STERNE, J. A. (2006). A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics, 8, 239-251.
  • HARDY, R. J., & THOMPSON, S. G. (1998). Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 841-856.
  • HASSELBLAD, V., & HEDGES, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological bulletin, 117(1), 167.
  • HIGGINS, J., & THOMPSON, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine, 21, 1539-1558.
  • HIGGINS, J. P., THOMPSON, S. G., DEEKS, J. J., & ALTMAN, D. G (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327, 557.
  • HUEDO-MEDINA, T. B., SÁNCHEZ-MECA, J., MARÍN-MARTÍNEZ, F., & BOTELLA, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I 2 index?. Psychological methods, 11, 193.
  • KRISTON, L., H ÖLZEL, L., WEISER, A.K., BERNER, M. M., & H ÄRTER, M. (2008). Metaanalysis: are 3 questions enough to detect unhealthy alcohol use?. Annals of Internal Medicine, 149, 879- 888.
  • REITSMA, J. B., GLAS, A. S., RUTJES, A. W., SCHOLTEN, R. J., BOSSUYT, P. M., & ZWINDERMAN, A. H. (2005). Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 982-990.
  • RUTTER, C. M. & GATSONIS, C. A. (2001). A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Statistics In Medicine, 20, 2865-2884.
  • SACKETT, P. R., HARRIS, M. M., & ORR, J. M. (1986). On seeking moderator variables in the metaanalysis of correlational data: A Monte Carlo investigation of statistical power and resistance to Type I error. 544
  • SCHULZE, R. E., HOLLING, H. E., & BÖHNING, D. E. (2003). Meta-analysis: New Developments and Applications in Medical and Social Sciences. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
  • SUTTON, A. J., ABRAMS, K. R., JONES, D. R., SHELDON, T. A., & SONG, F. (2003). Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Statistics in Medicine, 22(19), 3111-3114.