Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Méta-régression× | Analyse ROC (Courbe Caractéristique d'Opération du Récepteur)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine≠ | Méta-analyse | Statistique |
| Famille≠ | Regression model | Hypothesis test |
| Année d'origine≠ | 2002 | 1954 (signal detection); 1982 (AUC formalization) |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Simon Thompson & Julian Higgins | Peterson, Birdsall & Fox (signal detection theory); Hanley & McNeil (medical statistics) |
| Type≠ | Weighted regression for effect-size heterogeneity | Diagnostic accuracy evaluation |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002). How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1559–1573. DOI ↗ | Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143(1), 29–36. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | Meta-Analytic Regression, Weighted Regression in Meta-Analysis, Moderator Analysis, Meta-regresyon | ROC curve analysis, AUC analysis, sensitivity-specificity analysis, diagnostic accuracy analysis |
| Apparentées≠ | 2 | 4 |
| Résumé≠ | Meta-regression is a statistical technique that extends conventional meta-analysis by regressing study-level effect sizes on one or more study characteristics (moderators) to explain between-study heterogeneity. Formalized by Thompson and Higgins in 2002, it uses weighted least squares — weighting each study by the inverse of its variance — within a mixed-effects framework, allowing researchers to identify which study features systematically account for variation in observed effects across the literature. | ROC analysis evaluates how well a continuous or ordinal test variable discriminates between two binary outcome classes. By plotting the true positive rate (sensitivity) against the false positive rate (1 − specificity) across all decision thresholds, it produces a curve whose area under the curve (AUC) quantifies overall discriminative power, ranging from 0.5 (chance) to 1.0 (perfect discrimination). |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|