Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. A comparison of bivariate, multivariate random-effects, and Poisson correlated gamma-frailty models to meta-analyze individual patient data of ordinal scale diagnostic tests
    Simoneau G, Levis B, Cuijpers P, Ioannidis JPA, Patten SB, Shrier I, et al.
    Biom J, 2017 Nov;59(6):1317-1338.
    PMID: 28692782 DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201600184
    Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses are increasingly common in the literature. In the context of estimating the diagnostic accuracy of ordinal or semi-continuous scale tests, sensitivity and specificity are often reported for a given threshold or a small set of thresholds, and a meta-analysis is conducted via a bivariate approach to account for their correlation. When IPD are available, sensitivity and specificity can be pooled for every possible threshold. Our objective was to compare the bivariate approach, which can be applied separately at every threshold, to two multivariate methods: the ordinal multivariate random-effects model and the Poisson correlated gamma-frailty model. Our comparison was empirical, using IPD from 13 studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression screening tool, and included simulations. The empirical comparison showed that the implementation of the two multivariate methods is more laborious in terms of computational time and sensitivity to user-supplied values compared to the bivariate approach. Simulations showed that ignoring the within-study correlation of sensitivity and specificity across thresholds did not worsen inferences with the bivariate approach compared to the Poisson model. The ordinal approach was not suitable for simulations because the model was highly sensitive to user-supplied starting values. We tentatively recommend the bivariate approach rather than more complex multivariate methods for IPD diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses of ordinal scale tests, although the limited type of diagnostic data considered in the simulation study restricts the generalization of our findings.
  2. Fulltext The Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Algorithm for Screening to Detect Major Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis
    He C, Levis B, Riehm KE, Saadat N, Levis AW, Azar M, et al.
    Psychother Psychosom, 2020;89(1):25-37.
    PMID: 31593971 DOI: 10.1159/000502294
    BACKGROUND: Screening for major depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can be done using a cutoff or the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm. Many primary studies publish results for only one approach, and previous meta-analyses of the algorithm approach included only a subset of primary studies that collected data and could have published results.

    OBJECTIVE: To use an individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of two PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithms for detecting major depression and compare accuracy between the algorithms and the standard PHQ-9 cutoff score of ≥10.

    METHODS: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to February 7, 2015). Eligible studies that classified current major depression status using a validated diagnostic interview.

    RESULTS: Data were included for 54 of 72 identified eligible studies (n participants = 16,688, n cases = 2,091). Among studies that used a semi-structured interview, pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.49, 0.64) and 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) for the original algorithm and 0.61 (0.54, 0.68) and 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) for a modified algorithm. Algorithm sensitivity was 0.22-0.24 lower compared to fully structured interviews and 0.06-0.07 lower compared to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Specificity was similar across reference standards. For PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥10 compared to semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.82-0.92) and 0.86 (0.82-0.88).

    CONCLUSIONS: The cutoff score approach appears to be a better option than a PHQ-9 algorithm for detecting major depression.

  3. Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers
    Gopalakrishna G, Langendam M, Scholten R, Bossuyt P, Leeflang M, Noel-Storr A, et al.
    Diagn Progn Res, 2017;1:11.
    PMID: 31095132 DOI: 10.1186/s41512-017-0011-4
    [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.].
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links