PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 21, 2013American Journal of Epidemiology230 citationsOpen Access

Latent Class Models in Diagnostic Studies When There is No Reference Standard--A Systematic Review

View Full Paper
MSMaarten van SmedenCNChristiana A. NaaktgeborenJRJohannes B. Reitsma

Key Points

  • This review aims to evaluate the methodology and reporting of latent class models (LCMs) in diagnostic accuracy studies without a reference standard.
  • Conducted a systematic review of 64 studies utilizing latent class models for diagnostic accuracy.
  • Analyzed the use of both Bayesian and frequentist approaches across various specified parametric models.
  • Evaluated reporting on model assumptions and ability to verify diagnostic accuracy.
  • Observed a significant increase in LCM usage in the last decade, particularly in infectious diseases (59%).
  • Majority (61%) of studies relied on the independence assumption of test observations within two classes.
  • 28% of studies lacked reporting on model assumption checks, impacting the validity of diagnostic conclusions.

Abstract

Latent class models (LCMs) combine the results of multiple diagnostic tests through a statistical model to obtain estimates of disease prevalence and diagnostic test accuracy in situations where there is no single, accurate reference standard. We performed a systematic review of the methodology and reporting of LCMs in diagnostic accuracy studies. This review shows that the use of LCMs in such studies increased sharply in the past decade, notably in the domain of infectious diseases (overall contribution: 59%). The 64 reviewed studies used a range of differently specified parametric latent variable models, applying Bayesian and frequentist methods. The critical assumption underlying the majority of LCM applications (61%) is that the test observations must be independent within 2 classes. Because violations of this assumption can lead to biased estimates of accuracy and prevalence, performing and reporting checks of whether assumptions are met is essential. Unfortunately, our review shows that 28% of the included studies failed to report any information that enables verification of model assumptions or performance. Because of the lack of information on model fit and adequate evidence "external" to the LCMs, it is often difficult for readers to judge the validity of LCM-based inferences and conclusions reached.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Smeden et al. (2013) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0f1d3d9cac01975e425e89https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt286
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper