Skip to content


Volume 73 Supplement 1

Methods in Epidemiology Symposium

  • Oral presentation
  • Open Access

Marginal models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in frequentist and Bayesian framework using rstan and CopulaREMADA

  • 1,
  • 2 and
  • 1
Archives of Public HealthThe official journal of the Belgian Public Health Association201573 (Suppl 1) :O4

  • Published:


  • Joint Modelling
  • Correlation Parameter
  • Cervical Lesion
  • Marginal Model
  • Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Current statistical procedures implemented in general software packages for pooling of diagnostic test accuracy data include hSROC (Rutter and Gatsonis 2001) regression and the bivariate normal model (BRMA) (Reitsma et al. (2005), Arends (2006) and Chu and Cole (2006)). However, these models do not report the overall mean. The hSROC model is less intuitive and therefore less popular while the bivariate normal model has difficulties estimating the correlation parameter when the number studies in the meta-analysis are small and/or when the between-study variances are relatively large. As a result, the between study variance estimates from the BRMA are upwardly biased as they are inflated to compensate for the restriction on correlation parameter (Riley et al. 2007). We present advanced statistical methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies and demonstrate the use of different software packages in R or with an R interface together with code, to apply different model strategies for obtaining appropriate meta-analytic parameter estimates. The focus is on the joint modelling of sensitivity and specificity using copulas as well as using the concept of sharing random components.

The methods are applied to two datasets: the classical example of Glas et al. (2003) on diagnostic accuracy of telomerase as urinary tumour marker for diagnosing primary bladder cancer and a second dataset from a systematic review by Arbyn et al. (2013) that aimed at comparing sensitivity and specificity of human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions.

Authors’ Affiliations

Scientifici Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium
University of Hasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium


© Nyaga et al. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.