[R-meta] diagnostic meta-analysis of studies with multiple readers

[Mario Petretta]

Thanks for your kindly replay.
At this time I have 14 studies and 4 of them give information useful to
obtain the number of true-positive, true-negative, false-positive and false
negative for more than one reader (two in two studies and three in the other
two); three  studies  include reproducibility information (Bland Altman
plots or ICC). 
For all the four studies with multiple readers, the readers evaluated the
same imaging examination of all study patients, i.e. there was a unique
study for patient but the imaging studies were read independently and
blinded. Thus, sensitivity and specificity vary across the readers.

Among the various possibilities I thought to report the same study several
times in the analysis with the different 2 x 2 tables, but the problem is
how do you take into account that it is for some studies of the same
population (a sort of cluster). I also hypothesize to do, thereafter, a
sensitivity analysis including only the results of the best or worst readers
or the average of the different readers.
 
Thanks for the attention.
Mario
  

__________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 18:57:33 +0100
From: Philipp Doebler <doebler at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
To: Mario Petretta <petretta at unina.it>
Cc: r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-meta] diagnostic meta-analysis of studies with
	multiple	reader
Message-ID:
	<CAMU7UxFGYpLYesqKc2+2xpphqkQWhzsn=Py9M9C08VL6k9BoDw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Dear Mario,

could you give us some more details? Is it realistic to obtain a 2x2-table
for each reader?

Best,
  Philipp

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Mario Petretta <petretta at unina.it> wrote:

> Dear all.
> I'm planning a diagnostic meta-analysis with an imaging test and a 
> binary outcome (yes/no) .
> Some (not all) studies contain multiple readers, which means that more 
> than one physician interprets each examination.
>
> At present, it appears that there are no recommendations for which 
> strategy is optimal (see Eur J Radiol. 2017;93:59-64 Systematic Reviews
2017;6:194).
>
> I would appreciate very much suggestions on this topic.
> Thanks for the attention.
> Sincerely
> Mario Petretta
> ___________________________________________
> Mario Petretta, MD, FAHA
> Associate Professor of Internal Medicine
> Department of Translational Medical Sciences
> Naples University "Federico II" - Italy
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list
> R-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-meta-analysis
>
--
Prof. Dr. Philipp Doebler
Technische Universit?t Dortmund
Fakult?t Statistik
Vogelpothsweg 87
44227 Dortmund

Tel.: +49 231-755 8259
Fax: +49 231-755 3918
doebler at statistik.tu-dortmund.de
www.statistik.tu-dortmund.de/1261.html