Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 11/2020

25-03-2020 | Letter to the Editor

Please, Don’t Shoot the Meta-analysis: A Response to “A Commentary to Toddler Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy by Sánchez-Garcia et al. 2019”

Auteurs: Ana B. Sánchez-García, Ana B. Nieto-Libreros, Purificación Galindo-Villardón, Diana L. Robins

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders | Uitgave 11/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Excerpt

In their letter to the editor, Øien et al. (2019) highlight concerns about conducting a meta-analysis on screening instruments for ASD. They focus on lack of information and heterogeneity among the individual studies pooled in the research by Sánchez-García et al. (2019). The authors do not question the experimental method; even stating that it “provides us with important knowledge of how screening instruments perform across various studies.” Of course, clinical and methodological heterogeneity could cause statistical heterogeneity leading to inaccurate conclusions in a meta-analysis (Higgins and Altman 2008). Although this should not preclude conducting meta-analytic investigation, since understanding the causes of heterogeneity increases its scientific value and the clinical significance of the results (Thompson 1994). Therefore, it is not a threat or concern to synthesize the available evidence (Lijmer et al. 2002). Having said that, the methodological limitations among studies included in a meta-analysis is not specific to ASD screening; yet, there is a large literature about the viability and importance of diagnostic or screening accuracy meta-analyses. Given empirical support in other disorders, it is logical to apply them to a meta-analysis in screening instruments for ASD. There are three specific points that warrant further consideration. …
Literatuur
go back to reference Arends, L. R. (2006). Multivariate Meta-analysis: Modelling the Heterogeneity. PhD diss., Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Arends, L. R. (2006). Multivariate Meta-analysis: Modelling the Heterogeneity. PhD diss., Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
go back to reference DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177–188.CrossRef DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177–188.CrossRef
go back to reference Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series (pp. 187–241). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRef Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series (pp. 187–241). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRef
go back to reference Jones, H. E., Gatsonsis, C. A., Trikalinos, T. A., Welton, N. J., & Ades, A. E. (2019). Quantifying how diagnostic test accuracy depends on threshold in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 38, 4789–4803.CrossRefPubMed Jones, H. E., Gatsonsis, C. A., Trikalinos, T. A., Welton, N. J., & Ades, A. E. (2019). Quantifying how diagnostic test accuracy depends on threshold in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 38, 4789–4803.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lijmer, J. G., Bossuyt, P. M., & Heisterkamp, S. H. (2002). Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1525–1537.CrossRef Lijmer, J. G., Bossuyt, P. M., & Heisterkamp, S. H. (2002). Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1525–1537.CrossRef
go back to reference Macaskill, P. (2004). Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(9), 925–932.CrossRef Macaskill, P. (2004). Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(9), 925–932.CrossRef
go back to reference Macaskill, P., Gatsonis, C., Deeks, J., Harbord, R., & Takwoingi, Y. (2010). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 0.9.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration. Macaskill, P., Gatsonis, C., Deeks, J., Harbord, R., & Takwoingi, Y. (2010). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 0.9.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration.
go back to reference Øien, R. A., Cicchetti, D. V., Nordahl-Hansen, A., & Schjølberg, S. (2019). A commentary to “toddler screening for autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy”. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49, 1837–1852.CrossRef Øien, R. A., Cicchetti, D. V., Nordahl-Hansen, A., & Schjølberg, S. (2019). A commentary to “toddler screening for autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy”. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49, 1837–1852.CrossRef
go back to reference Rhodes, K. M., Turner, R. M., Savović, J., Jones, H. E., Mawdsley, D., & Higgins, J. P. (2018). Between-trial heterogeneity in meta-analyses may be partially explained by reported design characteristics. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 95, 45–54.CrossRefPubMed Rhodes, K. M., Turner, R. M., Savović, J., Jones, H. E., Mawdsley, D., & Higgins, J. P. (2018). Between-trial heterogeneity in meta-analyses may be partially explained by reported design characteristics. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 95, 45–54.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Robins, D. L. (2020). How do we determine the utility of screening tools? Autism, 24(2), 271–273.CrossRef Robins, D. L. (2020). How do we determine the utility of screening tools? Autism, 24(2), 271–273.CrossRef
go back to reference Rücker, G., Steinhauser, S., Kolampally, S., & Schwarzer, G. (2018). Diagmeta: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies with several cutpoints. Rücker, G., Steinhauser, S., Kolampally, S., & Schwarzer, G. (2018). Diagmeta: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies with several cutpoints.
go back to reference Rutter, C. M., & Gatsonis, C. A. (2001). A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Statistics in Medicine, 20(19), 2865–2884.CrossRef Rutter, C. M., & Gatsonis, C. A. (2001). A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Statistics in Medicine, 20(19), 2865–2884.CrossRef
go back to reference Sánchez-García, A. B., Galindo-Villardón, P., Nieto-Librero, A. B., Martín-Rodero, H., & Robins, D. L. (2019). Toddler screening for autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(5), 1837–1852.CrossRefPubMed Sánchez-García, A. B., Galindo-Villardón, P., Nieto-Librero, A. B., Martín-Rodero, H., & Robins, D. L. (2019). Toddler screening for autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(5), 1837–1852.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Takwoingi, Y., Riley, R. D., & Deeks, J. J. (2015). Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 18(4), 103–109.CrossRefPubMed Takwoingi, Y., Riley, R. D., & Deeks, J. J. (2015). Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 18(4), 103–109.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Thompson, S. G. (1994). Systematic review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ, 309(6965), 1351–1355.CrossRefPubMed Thompson, S. G. (1994). Systematic review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ, 309(6965), 1351–1355.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Please, Don’t Shoot the Meta-analysis: A Response to “A Commentary to Toddler Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy by Sánchez-Garcia et al. 2019”
Auteurs
Ana B. Sánchez-García
Ana B. Nieto-Libreros
Purificación Galindo-Villardón
Diana L. Robins
Publicatiedatum
25-03-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer US
Gepubliceerd in
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders / Uitgave 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0162-3257
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3432
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04462-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 11/2020

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 11/2020 Naar de uitgave