Diribsa T. Bedada | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Methods for Assessing Distributional Assumptions in Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Tests

Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies is commonly based on bivariate generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) that assume normally distributed study-specific random effects. In practice, this distributional assumption is rarely examined, particularly in individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), where empirical Bayes (EB) estimates exhibit heterogeneous precision across studies. Applying standard multivariate normality tests to such estimates can therefore lead to misleading inference. We propose a weighted extension of the Henze-Zirkler (HZ) test to assess bivariate normality of random effects, accounting for study-specific precision via inverse-variance weighting. To obtain valid finite-sample inference, we develop a parametric bootstrap calibration procedure. Extensive simulation studies showed that the classical HZ test applied to EB estimates can exhibit substantial Type I error inflation, whereas the proposed weighted procedures maintain nominal error rates while retaining power to detect departures from normality. The proposed method provides a practical, statistically principled diagnostic tool for assessing random-effects distributional assumptions in hierarchical models, with particular relevance to IPDMA of DTA studies. Although motivated by IPDMA, the proposed approach also extends to aggregate-data diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis based on study-level 2-by-2 tables.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Robust bootstrap methods for meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies

Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) commonly relies on the bivariate linear mixed model (BLMM) and the bivariate generalized linear mixed model (BGLMM) to jointly synthesize diagnostic test sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp). However, reliance on asymptotic theory and random-effects distributional assumptions may affect finite-sample inference, particularly in small meta-analyses or when the random effects are non-normal. We proposed three bootstrap-based approaches: a nonparametric bootstrap (NPB), a parametric bootstrap (PB), and a bias-corrected parametric bootstrap (BCPB), with the latter two based on a fitted BGLMM. NPB model parameters were estimated using inverse-variance-covariance weighted least squares. Extensive simulations under bivariate normal, Student-t, and Laplace random-effects distributions evaluated finite-sample performance and robustness to departures from normality. Results were qualitatively similar across the three distributions. The bootstrap approaches generally outperformed BLMM in terms of bias, root mean squared error (RMSE), and coverage probability, particularly when diagnostic accuracy is high and the number of studies is small. The BCPB demonstrated the strongest finite-sample performance among the bootstrap approaches, frequently achieving the lowest bias and RMSE for pooled sensitivity and specificity while maintaining coverage probabilities close to the nominal level. The BGLMM also performed well across most settings. The NPB approach generally improved upon the BLMM while providing a flexible alternative without parametric random-effects assumptions. Real-data applications further illustrated the practical utility of the proposed approaches. Overall, the bootstrap methods provide useful alternatives for DTA meta-analysis, particularly when the number of studies is small or random-effects distributional assumptions are uncertain.

stat.ME↗