The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: Data‐analytic approaches and some additional considerations
Abstract
We consider how to combine several independent studies of the same diagnostic test, where each study reports an estimated false positive rate )FPR( and an estimated true positive rate )TPR(. We propose constructing a summary receiver operating characteristic )ROC( curve by the following steps. )i( Convert each FPR to its logistic transform U and each TPR to its logistic transform V after increasing each observed frequency by adding 1/2. )ii( For each study calculate D = V – U, which is the log odds ratio of TPR and FPR, and S = V + U, an implied function of test threshold; then plot each study's point )S i, D i(. )iii( Fit a robust‐resistant regression line to these points )or an equally weighted least‐squares regression line(, with V – U as the dependent variable. )iv( Back‐transform the line to ROC space. To avoid model‐dependent extrapolation from irrelevant regions of ROC space we propose defining a priori a value of FPR so large that the test simply would not be used at that FPR, and a value of TPR so low that the test would not be used at that TPR. Then )a( only data points lying in the thus defined north‐west rectangle of the unit square are used in the data analysis, and )b( the estimated summary ROC is depicted only within that subregion of the unit square. We illustrate the methods using simulated and real data sets, and we point to ways of comparing different tests and of taking into account the effects of covariates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Cited by
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
“Howev sensitivity and specificity are often negatively correlate within studies, and ignoring this correlation would be inap propriate[7,11,12].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDeeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Schmid, C. H. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008 · Cited by 2,517
The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance
Glas, A. S., Lijmer, J. G., Prins, M. H., Bonsel, G. J., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00177-x · Cited by 2,261
Greiner, M., Pfeiffer, D., & Smith, R. D. (2000) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0167-5877(00)00115-x · Cited by 1,923
Metadata
- Authors
- Moses, L. E., Shapiro, D., & Littenberg, B.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-07-30
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 1293-1316
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2113009004
- Cited by
- 1,405
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: Data‐analytic approaches and some additional considerations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.4780121403
- The paper
- Moses, L. E., Shapiro, D., & Littenberg, B. (1993). Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: Data‐analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780121403
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.