The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations
Abstract
An important quality of meta‐analytic models for research synthesis is their ability to account for both within‐ and between‐study variability. Currently available meta‐analytic approaches for studies of diagnostic test accuracy work primarily within a fixed‐effects framework. In this paper we describe a hierarchical regression model for meta‐analysis of studies reporting estimates of test sensitivity and specificity. The model allows more between‐ and within‐study variability than fixed‐effect approaches, by allowing both test stringency and test accuracy to vary across studies. It is also possible to examine the effects of study specific covariates. Estimates are computed using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation with publicly available software (BUGS). This estimation method allows flexibility in the choice of summary statistics. We demonstrate the advantages of this modelling approach using a recently published meta‐analysis comparing three tests used to detect nodal metastasis of cervical cancer. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities
Gelfand, A. E., & Smith, A. F. M. (1990) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1990.10476213 · Cited by 6,606
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985) · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1988-9 · Cited by 1,777
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
“The statistical shortcomings of the sROC approach have been described before [11,13,36] Rutter et al.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMcInnes, M. D. F., Moher, D., Thombs, B. D., McGrath, T. A., Bossuyt, P. M., and the PRISMA-DTA Group, Clifford, T., Cohen, J. F., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., et al. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163 · Cited by 3,210
Self-citationDeeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
Predicting adult obesity from childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Simmonds, M., Llewellyn, A., Owen, C. G., & Woolacott, N. (2016) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12334 · Cited by 2,103
Moons, K. G. M., Wolff, R. F., Riley, R. D., Whiting, P. F., Westwood, M., Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Kleijnen, J., & Mallett, S. (2019) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-1377 · Cited by 1,669
Metadata
- Authors
- Rutter, C. M., & Gatsonis, C. A.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-09-05
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 2865-2884
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2151047141
- Cited by
- 1,505
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.98
- 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: A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.942
- The paper
- Rutter, C. M., & Gatsonis, C. A. (2001). A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.942
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.
