Comparison of Estimation Method in Diagnostic Meta-Analysis: An Application in Dentistry

Parmaksiz Merve, Boyacioğlu Hayal, G. Pelin, Ezgi Özer Nezaket
{"title":"Comparison of Estimation Method in Diagnostic Meta-Analysis: An Application in Dentistry","authors":"Parmaksiz Merve, Boyacioğlu Hayal, G. Pelin, Ezgi Özer Nezaket","doi":"10.23937/2469-5831/1510036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, the objective was to compare different estimation methods in diagnostic meta-analysis. In this scope, DerSimonian and Laird (DL), Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML), Sidik and Jonkman (SJ), Hedges and Olkin (HO), Maximum Likelihood (ML), Paule and Mandel (PM) estimation methods were examined. In the implementation part, effectiveness of Clinical Oral Examination (COE) in predicting the diagnosis of histological dysplasia or Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC) was studied. Meta analysis was performed for the data set obtained from 24 studies in accordance with the criteria. Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the effect size. In meta analysis of the random effect model, according to the DerSimonian and Laird (DL) method, the pooled sensitivity value of COE was calculated as 0.953 (95% CI: 0.895-0.979), pooled selectivity was 0.25 (95% CI: 0.124-0.44), and pooled odds ratio was OR = 6.031 (95% CI: 2.208-16.471). According to these results, it can be concluded that COE was not effective in diagnosis. Among the other estimation methods, DerSimonian and Laird (DL) presented the lowest value for I2 and τ2 (I2 = 66.63%, τ2 = 3.489).","PeriodicalId":91282,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical biostatistics and biometrics","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical biostatistics and biometrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5831/1510036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, the objective was to compare different estimation methods in diagnostic meta-analysis. In this scope, DerSimonian and Laird (DL), Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML), Sidik and Jonkman (SJ), Hedges and Olkin (HO), Maximum Likelihood (ML), Paule and Mandel (PM) estimation methods were examined. In the implementation part, effectiveness of Clinical Oral Examination (COE) in predicting the diagnosis of histological dysplasia or Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC) was studied. Meta analysis was performed for the data set obtained from 24 studies in accordance with the criteria. Odds Ratio (OR) was used as the effect size. In meta analysis of the random effect model, according to the DerSimonian and Laird (DL) method, the pooled sensitivity value of COE was calculated as 0.953 (95% CI: 0.895-0.979), pooled selectivity was 0.25 (95% CI: 0.124-0.44), and pooled odds ratio was OR = 6.031 (95% CI: 2.208-16.471). According to these results, it can be concluded that COE was not effective in diagnosis. Among the other estimation methods, DerSimonian and Laird (DL) presented the lowest value for I2 and τ2 (I2 = 66.63%, τ2 = 3.489).
诊断荟萃分析中估计方法的比较:在牙科中的应用
在这项研究中,目的是比较诊断荟萃分析中不同的估计方法。在此范围内,研究了DerSimonian and Laird (DL)、限制最大似然(REML)、Sidik and Jonkman (SJ)、Hedges and Olkin (HO)、最大似然(ML)、Paule and Mandel (PM)估计方法。在实施部分,研究了临床口腔检查(COE)在预测组织学异常增生或口腔鳞状细胞癌(OSCC)诊断中的有效性。对符合标准的24项研究的数据集进行Meta分析。采用优势比(Odds Ratio, OR)作为效应量。在随机效应模型的meta分析中,根据DerSimonian and Laird (DL)方法计算出COE的合并敏感性值为0.953 (95% CI: 0.895 ~ 0.979),合并选择性值为0.25 (95% CI: 0.124 ~ 0.44),合并优势比OR = 6.031 (95% CI: 2.208 ~ 16.471)。根据这些结果,可以得出COE在诊断中无效的结论。在其他估计方法中,DerSimonian和Laird (DL)的I2和τ2值最低(I2 = 66.63%, τ2 = 3.489)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信