Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

618
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
618
Multiple Comparison Tests01:13

Multiple Comparison Tests

4.5K
Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
4.5K
Bonferroni Test01:10

Bonferroni Test

3.4K
The Bonferroni test is a statistical test named after Carlo Emilio Bonferroni, an Italian mathematician best known for Bonferroni inequalities. This statistical test is a type of multiple comparison test to determine which means are different than the rest. Bonferroni test can minimize the Type 1 error by reducing the significance level alpha, which otherwise increases with sample pairs.
The means of different samples are first paired in all possible combinations.
The null hypothesis of the...
3.4K
Statistical Analysis: Overview01:11

Statistical Analysis: Overview

16.7K
When we take repeated measurements on the same or replicated samples, we will observe inconsistencies in the magnitude. These inconsistencies are called errors. To categorize and characterize these results and their errors, the researcher can use statistical analysis to determine the quality of the measurements and/or suitability of the methods.
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
16.7K
Errors In Hypothesis Tests01:14

Errors In Hypothesis Tests

6.1K
When performing a hypothesis test, there are four possible outcomes depending on the actual truth (or falseness) of the null hypothesis and the decision to reject or not.
6.1K
Testing a Claim about Population Proportion01:24

Testing a Claim about Population Proportion

4.0K
A complete procedure for testing a claim about a population proportion is provided here.
There are two methods of testing a claim about a population proportion: (1) Using the sample proportion from the data where a binomial distribution is approximated to the normal distribution and (2) Using the binomial probabilities calculated from the data.
The first method uses normal distribution as an approximation to the binomial distribution. The requirements are as follows: sample size is large...
4.0K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Effects of physical activity and diet in pregnancy to prevent gestational diabetes: an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on the differential effects of interventions with economic evaluation.

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)·2026
Same author

A comparison of methodological approaches to developing clinical prediction models for individuals living with multiple long-term conditions: a protocol for a systematic review.

Diagnostic and prognostic research·2026
Same author

Individual participant data meta-analysis to examine linear or non-linear treatment-covariate interactions at multiple time-points for a continuous outcome.

Research synthesis methods·2024
Same author

Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)·2024
Same author

Calculating the power of a planned individual participant data meta-analysis to examine prognostic factor effects for a binary outcome.

Research synthesis methods·2024
Same author

Development of the Community-based complex Interventions to sustain Independence in Older People (CII-OP) typology: a qualitative synthesis of interventions in randomised controlled trials.

Age and ageing·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 20, 2026

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats
08:06

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats

Published on: June 18, 2018

7.7K

Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies using imputation for partial reporting of multiple thresholds.

J Ensor1, J J Deeks2, E C Martin3

  • 1Centre for Prognosis Research, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Newcastle, UK.

Research Synthesis Methods
|October 21, 2017
PubMed
Summary

Multiple imputation using discrete combinations (MIDC) effectively addresses missing threshold results in test accuracy meta-analyses, outperforming no imputation (NI) and single imputation (SI) methods.

Keywords:
diagnostic test accuracyimputationmeta-analysismultiple thresholdspublication bias

More Related Videos

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

8.1K
Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI
06:26

Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI

Published on: November 27, 2019

78.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 20, 2026

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats
08:06

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats

Published on: June 18, 2018

7.7K
A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

8.1K
Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI
06:26

Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI

Published on: November 27, 2019

78.0K

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Medical Informatics
  • Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

Background:

  • Primary studies often report test performance at various thresholds, leading to missing data in meta-analyses.
  • Standard meta-analysis (no imputation) ignores this missing data.
  • Single imputation (SI) was previously proposed to address missing threshold results.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To introduce a novel method, multiple imputation of missing threshold results using discrete combinations (MIDC).
  • To compare MIDC with no imputation (NI) and single imputation (SI) in meta-analysis of test accuracy.

Main Methods:

  • MIDC imputes missing thresholds by selecting from discrete combinations between known thresholds.
  • Imputed and observed results are synthesized, repeated multiple times, and combined using Rubin's rules.
  • Simulations were conducted to compare NI, SI, and MIDC approaches.

Main Results:

  • Both imputation methods (SI and MIDC) outperformed the no imputation (NI) method in simulations.
  • MIDC showed advantages in estimating between-study variances and providing better coverage.
  • Imputation methods reduced bias in summary receiver operating characteristic curves, especially with selective threshold reporting.

Conclusions:

  • Single imputation (SI) and multiple imputation using discrete combinations (MIDC) are valuable for analyzing missing threshold data in test accuracy meta-analyses.
  • MIDC is particularly effective for addressing missing threshold data in diagnostic test accuracy studies.