Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37025283›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied statistics2023

On summary ROC curve for dichotomous diagnostic studies: an application to meta-analysis of COVID-19.

ShengLi Tzeng, Chun-Shu Chen, Yu-Fen Li, Jin-Hua Chen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied statistics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

ShengLi TzengDepartment of Applied Mathematics, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chun-Shu ChenGraduate Institute of Statistics, National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan.
Yu-Fen LiDepartment of Public Health, Taichung, Chung-Li, Taiwan.
Jin-Hua ChenGraduate Institute of Data Science, College of Management, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
National Central University · TWNational Sun Yat-sen University · TWTaipei Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a systematic review of a diagnostic performance, summarizing performance metrics is crucial. There are various summary models in the literature, and hence model selection becomes inevitable. However, most existing large-sample-based model selection approaches may not fit in a meta-analysis of diagnostic studies, typically having a rather small sample size. Researchers need to effectively determine the final model for further inference, which motivates this article to investigate existing methods and to suggest a more robust method for this need. We considered models covering several widely-used methods for bivariate summary of sensitivity and specificity. Simulation studies were conducted based on different number of studies and different population sensitivity and specificity. Then final models were selected using several existing criteria, and we compared the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves to the theoretical ROC curve given the generating model. Even though parametric likelihood-based criteria are often applied in practice for their asymptotic property, they fail to consistently choose appropriate models under the limited number of studies. When the number of studies is as small as 10 or 5, our suggestion is best in different scenarios. An example for summary ROC curves for chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) used in COVID-19 diagnosis is also illustrated.

Indexed as

meta analysisrandom effectssensitivityspecificitySummary ROC curvesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37025283
PMCPMC10071901
OpenAlexW4214518701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.