Copas-like selection model to correct publication bias in systematic review of diagnostic test studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Piao J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6443505 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct-Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Copas-like selection model to correct publication bias in systematic review of diagnostic test studies.
Piao Jin J Liu Yulun Y Chen Yong Y Ning Jing J
Statistical methods in medical research 20180731 10-11
The accuracy of a diagnostic test, which is often quantified by a pair of measures such as sensitivity and specificity, is critical for medical decision making. Separate studies of an investigational diagnostic test can be combined through meta-analysis; however, such an analysis can be threatened by publication bias. To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing method that accounts for publication bias in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests involving bivariate outcomes. In this paper, w ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.
| S-EPMC3651300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention.We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.
| S-EPMC2518111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publication bias frequently appears in meta-analyses when the included studies' results (e.g., p-values) influence the studies' publication processes. Some unfavorable studies may be suppressed from publication, so the meta-analytic results may be biased toward an artificially favorable direction. Many statistical tests have been proposed to detect publication bias in recent two decades. However, they often make dramatically different assumptions about the cause of publication bias; therefore, they are usually powerful only in certain cases that support their particular assumptions, while their powers may be fairly low in many other cases. Although several simulation studies have been carried out to compare different tests' powers under various situations, it is typically infeasible to justify the exact mechanism of publication bias in a real-world meta-analysis and thus select the corresponding optimal publication bias test. We introduce a hybrid test for publication bias by synthesizing various tests and incorporating their benefits, so that it maintains relatively high powers across various mechanisms of publication bias. The superior performance of the proposed hybrid test is illustrated using simulation studies and three real-world meta-analyses with different effect sizes. It is compared with many existing methods, including the commonly used regression and rank tests, and the trim-and-fill method.
| S-EPMC7434640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:In this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS:This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.
| S-EPMC3702538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSystematic reviews of medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are affected by between-study heterogeneity due to a range of factors. Failure to appropriately assess the extent and causes of heterogeneity compromises the interpretability of systematic review findings.ObjectiveTo assess how heterogeneity has been examined in medical imaging DTA studies.Evidence reviewThe PubMed database was searched for systematic reviews of medical imaging DTA studies that performed a meta-analysis. The search was limited to the 40 journals with highest impact factor in the radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging category in the InCites Journal Citation Reports of 2021 to reach a sample size of 200 to 300 included studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to characterize the imaging modality, target condition, type of meta-analysis model used, strategies for evaluating heterogeneity, and sources of heterogeneity identified. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether any factors were associated with at least 1 source of heterogeneity being identified in the included meta-analyses. Methodological quality evaluation was not performed. Data analysis occurred from October to December 2022.FindingsA total of 242 meta-analyses involving a median (range) of 987 (119-441 510) patients across a diverse range of disease categories and imaging modalities were included. The extent of heterogeneity was adequately described (ie, whether it was absent, low, moderate, or high) in 220 studies (91%) and was most commonly assessed using the I2 statistic (185 studies [76%]) and forest plots (181 studies [75%]). Heterogeneity was rated as moderate to high in 191 studies (79%). Of all included meta-analyses, 122 (50%) performed subgroup analysis and 87 (36%) performed meta-regression. Of the 242 studies assessed, 189 (78%) included 10 or more primary studies. Of these 189 studies, 60 (32%) did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analysis. Reasons for being unable to investigate sources of heterogeneity included inadequate reporting of primary study characteristics and a low number of included primary studies. Use of meta-regression was associated with identification of at least 1 source of variability (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.23; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of assessment of heterogeneity in medical imaging DTA meta-analyses, most meta-analyses were impacted by a moderate to high level of heterogeneity, presenting interpretive challenges. These findings suggest that, despite the development and availability of more rigorous statistical models, heterogeneity appeared to be incomplete, inconsistently evaluated, or methodologically questionable in many cases, which lessened the interpretability of the analyses performed; comprehensive heterogeneity assessment should be addressed at the author level by improving personal familiarity with appropriate statistical methodology for assessing heterogeneity and involving biostatisticians and epidemiologists in study design, as well as at the editorial level, by mandating adherence to methodologic standards in primary DTA studies and DTA meta-analyses.
| S-EPMC10905313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMachine learning (ML) diagnostic tools have significant potential to improve health care. However, methodological pitfalls may affect diagnostic test accuracy studies used to appraise such tools. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and reporting of design characteristics within the literature. Further, we sought to empirically assess whether design features may be associated with different estimates of diagnostic accuracy.Materials and methodsWe systematically retrieved 2 × 2 tables (n = 281) describing the performance of ML diagnostic tools, derived from 114 publications in 38 meta-analyses, from PubMed. Data extracted included test performance, sample sizes, and design features. A mixed-effects metaregression was run to quantify the association between design features and diagnostic accuracy.ResultsParticipant ethnicity and blinding in test interpretation was unreported in 90% and 60% of studies, respectively. Reporting was occasionally lacking for rudimentary characteristics such as study design (28% unreported). Internal validation without appropriate safeguards was used in 44% of studies. Several design features were associated with larger estimates of accuracy, including having unreported (relative diagnostic odds ratio [RDOR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-3.1) or case-control study designs (RDOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.97-1.66), and recruiting participants for the index test (RDOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.08-2.59).DiscussionSignificant underreporting of experimental details was present. Study design features may affect estimates of diagnostic performance in the ML diagnostic test accuracy literature.ConclusionsThe present study identifies pitfalls that threaten the validity, generalizability, and clinical value of ML diagnostic tools and provides recommendations for improvement.
| S-EPMC7647361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publication bias occurs when the published research results are systematically unrepresentative of the population of studies that have been conducted, and is a potential threat to meaningful meta-analysis. The Copas selection model provides a flexible framework for correcting estimates and offers considerable insight into the publication bias. However, maximizing the observed likelihood under the Copas selection model is challenging because the observed data contain very little information on the latent variable. In this article, we study a Copas-like selection model and propose an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm for estimation based on the full likelihood. Empirical simulation studies show that the EM algorithm and its associated inferential procedure performs well and avoids the non-convergence problem when maximizing the observed likelihood.
| S-EPMC5862358 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background:To research 1) how many acupuncture clinical trials are registered with the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) and what patterns they demonstrate, 2) publication of the articles of acupuncture clinical trials which were registered with ICTRP. Methods:The search strategy using the ICTRP: Intervention: acupuncture; Recruitment status: All; Date of registration; from 1 Jan 1990 to 31 Dec 2018. We searched the indexed articles in PubMed using trial IDs on 25 Feb 2019. When the paper was published, we indicated the number of weeks from the date of registration with ICTRP to the date of publication in order to define time till the publication. We divided the whole period we analyzed into 6 periods of every 3 years and measured the proportion of publication and the time from the date of registration of each trial till its publication in each period by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results:Forty-three countries/areas conducted at least one acupuncture clinical trial. The total number of registrations was 1758. China, the USA, and the Republic of Korea accounted for 61% of those registrations. The proportion of publication was 178/1758 10% for the fully published papers and 141/1758 8% for the protocol papers. Conclusions:The substantial increase of registrations by China, the Republic of Korea, Iran, Brazil, Japan was observed which may be attributed to improved awareness of the CONSORT statement. However, the fully published papers rate is low at 10%. The publication of results of acupuncture clinical trials should also be rigorously mandated.
| S-EPMC7021548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Copas parametric model is aimed at exploring the potential impact of publication bias via sensitivity analysis, by making assumptions regarding the probability of publication of individual studies related to the standard error of their effect sizes. Reviewers often have prior assumptions about the extent of selection in the set of studies included in a meta-analysis. However, a Bayesian implementation of the Copas model has not been studied yet. We aim to present a Bayesian selection model for publication bias and to extend it to the case of network meta-analysis where each treatment is compared either with placebo or with a reference treatment creating a star-shaped network. We take advantage of the greater flexibility offered in the Bayesian context to incorporate in the model prior information on the extent and strength of selection. To derive prior distributions, we use both external data and an elicitation process of expert opinion.
| S-EPMC5410995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Melanoma has the highest mortality rate among skin cancers, and early-diagnosis is essential to maximize survival rate. The current procedure for melanoma diagnosis is based on dermoscopy, i.e., a qualitative visual inspection of lesions with intrinsic limited diagnostic reliability and reproducibility. Other non-invasive diagnostic techniques may represent valuable solutions to retrieve additional objective information of a lesion. This review aims to compare the diagnostic performance of non-invasive techniques, alternative to dermoscopy, for melanoma detection in clinical settings. A systematic review of the available literature was performed using PubMed, Scopus and Google scholar databases (2010-September 2020). All human, in-vivo, non-invasive studies using techniques, alternative to dermoscopy, for melanoma diagnosis were included with no restriction on the recruited population. The reference standard was histology but dermoscopy was accepted only in case of benign lesions. Attributes of the analyzed studies were compared, and the quality was evaluated using CASP Checklist. For studies in which the investigated technique was implemented as a diagnostic tool (DTA studies), the QUADAS-2 tool was applied. For DTA studies that implemented a melanoma vs. other skin lesions classification task, a meta-analysis was performed reporting the SROC curves. Sixty-two references were included in the review, of which thirty-eight were analyzed using QUADAS-2. Study designs were: clinical trials (13), retrospective studies (10), prospective studies (8), pilot studies (10), multitiered study (1); the remain studies were proof of concept or had undefined study type. Studies were divided in categories based on the physical principle employed by each diagnostic technique. Twenty-nine out of thirty-eight DTA studies were included in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of studies' types, testing strategy, and diagnostic task limited the systematic comparison of the techniques. Based on the SROC curves, spectroscopy achieved the best performance in terms of sensitivity (93%, 95% CI 92.8-93.2%) and specificity (85.2%, 95%CI 84.9-85.5%), even though there was high concern regarding robustness of metrics. Reflectance-confocal-microscopy, instead, demonstrated higher robustness and a good diagnostic performance (sensitivity 88.2%, 80.3-93.1%; specificity 65.2%, 55-74.2%). Best practice recommendations were proposed to reduce bias in future DTA studies. Particular attention should be dedicated to widen the use of alternative techniques to conventional dermoscopy.
| S-EPMC8103840 | biostudies-literature