↓ Skip to main content

Modelling multiple thresholds in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Modelling multiple thresholds in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0196-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Steinhauser, Martin Schumacher, Gerta Rücker

Abstract

In meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy, routinely only one pair of sensitivity and specificity per study is used. However, for tests based on a biomarker or a questionnaire often more than one threshold and the corresponding values of true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives are known. We present a new meta-analysis approach using this additional information. It is based on the idea of estimating the distribution functions of the underlying biomarker or questionnaire within the non-diseased and diseased individuals. Assuming a normal or logistic distribution, we estimate the distribution parameters in both groups applying a linear mixed effects model to the transformed data. The model accounts for across-study heterogeneity and dependence of sensitivity and specificity. In addition, a simulation study is presented. We obtain a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve as well as the pooled sensitivity and specificity at every specific threshold. Furthermore, the determination of an optimal threshold across studies is possible through maximization of the Youden index. We demonstrate our approach using two meta-analyses of B type natriuretic peptide in heart failure and procalcitonin as a marker for sepsis. Our approach uses all the available information and results in an estimation not only of the performance of the biomarker but also of the threshold at which the optimal performance can be expected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 39%
Mathematics 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 27 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,007,517
of 24,417,324 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#273
of 2,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,764
of 362,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.