230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26234584)
1. A mixed effect model for bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies using a copula representation of the random effects distribution.
Nikoloulopoulos AK
Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3842-65. PubMed ID: 26234584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A vine copula mixed effect model for trivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence.
Nikoloulopoulos AK
Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Oct; 26(5):2270-2286. PubMed ID: 26265766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies: a new statistical model using beta-binomial distributions and bivariate copulas.
Kuss O; Hoyer A; Solms A
Stat Med; 2014 Jan; 33(1):17-30. PubMed ID: 23873593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Nonparametric meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies.
Zapf A; Hoyer A; Kramer K; Kuss O
Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3831-41. PubMed ID: 26174020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A D-vine copula mixed model for joint meta-analysis and comparison of diagnostic tests.
Nikoloulopoulos AK
Stat Methods Med Res; 2019; 28(10-11):3286-3300. PubMed ID: 30255733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A mixed model approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies with binary test outcome.
Doebler P; Holling H; Böhning D
Psychol Methods; 2012 Sep; 17(3):418-36. PubMed ID: 22582866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves.
Arends LR; Hamza TH; van Houwelingen JC; Heijenbrok-Kal MH; Hunink MG; Stijnen T
Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(5):621-38. PubMed ID: 18591542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.
Reitsma JB; Glas AS; Rutjes AW; Scholten RJ; Bossuyt PM; Zwinderman AH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Oct; 58(10):982-90. PubMed ID: 16168343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A multinomial quadrivariate D-vine copula mixed model for meta-analysis of diagnostic studies in the presence of non-evaluable subjects.
Nikoloulopoulos AK
Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Oct; 29(10):2988-3005. PubMed ID: 32323626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Mixture models in diagnostic meta-analyses--clustering summary receiver operating characteristic curves accounted for heterogeneity and correlation.
Schlattmann P; Verba M; Dewey M; Walther M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 68(1):61-72. PubMed ID: 25441701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Tutorial: statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Schlattmann P
Clin Chem Lab Med; 2023 Apr; 61(5):777-794. PubMed ID: 36656998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Univariate and bivariate likelihood-based meta-analysis methods performed comparably when marginal sensitivity and specificity were the targets of inference.
Dahabreh IJ; Trikalinos TA; Lau J; Schmid CH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Mar; 83():8-17. PubMed ID: 28063915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An extended trivariate vine copula mixed model for meta-analysis of diagnostic studies in the presence of non-evaluable outcomes.
Nikoloulopoulos AK
Int J Biostat; 2020 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 32772003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Summary ROC curve based on a weighted Youden index for selecting an optimal cutpoint in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.
Rücker G; Schumacher M
Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3069-78. PubMed ID: 21170902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Modelling multiple thresholds in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Steinhauser S; Schumacher M; Rücker G
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Aug; 16(1):97. PubMed ID: 27520527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX.
Menke J
Methods Inf Med; 2010; 49(1):54-62, 62-4. PubMed ID: 19936437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis.
Macaskill P
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 57(9):925-32. PubMed ID: 15504635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Empirical comparisons of meta-analysis methods for diagnostic studies: a meta-epidemiological study.
Rosenberger KJ; Chu H; Lin L
BMJ Open; 2022 May; 12(5):e055336. PubMed ID: 35534072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Hybrid copula mixed models for combining case-control and cohort studies in meta-analysis of diagnostic tests.
Nikoloulopoulos AK
Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Aug; 27(8):2540-2553. PubMed ID: 29984634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
