» Articles » PMID: 31184270

Maximum Likelihood Estimation Based on Newton-Raphson Iteration for the Bivariate Random Effects Model in Test Accuracy Meta-analysis

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialties Public Health
Science
Date 2019 Jun 12
PMID 31184270
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A bivariate generalised linear mixed model is often used for meta-analysis of test accuracy studies. The model is complex and requires five parameters to be estimated. As there is no closed form for the likelihood function for the model, maximum likelihood estimates for the parameters have to be obtained numerically. Although generic functions have emerged which may estimate the parameters in these models, they remain opaque to many. From first principles we demonstrate how the maximum likelihood estimates for the parameters may be obtained using two methods based on Newton-Raphson iteration. The first uses the profile likelihood and the second uses the Observed Fisher Information. As convergence may depend on the proximity of the initial estimates to the global maximum, each algorithm includes a method for obtaining robust initial estimates. A simulation study was used to evaluate the algorithms and compare their performance with the generic generalised linear mixed model function from the package in R before applying them to two meta-analyses from the literature. In general, the two algorithms had higher convergence rates and coverage probabilities than . Based on its performance characteristics the method of profiling is recommended for fitting the bivariate generalised linear mixed model for meta-analysis.

Citing Articles

An evaluation of computational methods for aggregate data meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Zhao Y, Khan B, Negeri Z BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024; 24(1):111.

PMID: 38730436 PMC: 11084104. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02217-2.


On estimating a constrained bivariate random effects model for meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.

Baragilly M, Willis B Stat Methods Med Res. 2022; 31(2):287-299.

PMID: 34994667 PMC: 8829734. DOI: 10.1177/09622802211065157.

References
1.
Harbord R, Deeks J, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne J . A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2006; 8(2):239-51. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxl004. View

2.
Stampfer M, Goldhaber S, Yusuf S, Peto R, Hennekens C . Effect of intravenous streptokinase on acute myocardial infarction: pooled results from randomized trials. N Engl J Med. 1982; 307(19):1180-2. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198211043071904. View

3.
Willis B, Hyde C . What is the test's accuracy in my practice population? Tailored meta-analysis provides a plausible estimate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 68(8):847-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.10.002. View

4.
van Houwelingen H, Zwinderman K, Stijnen T . A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1993; 12(24):2273-84. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780122405. View

5.
Reitsma J, Glas A, Rutjes A, Scholten R, Bossuyt P, Zwinderman A . Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(10):982-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022. View