Background: I am working on a systematic review including several imaging modalities for coronary artery disease, but the evidence network is quite large, including different modalities, often compared one to the other in an ample network.
Network meta-analysis is an established approach for randomized controlled trials, with several potential approaches available in WinBUGS, Stata, R, and SAS.
However, I am not aware of the possibility to conduct network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Question: Is there any meaningfully robust approach to conduct a network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies?
Attempt: In my opinion we could possibly use the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) as effect estimate, and then pool it with standard techniques within an evidence network framework, for instance using the
netmeta R package or similar approaches. (See: Which is the best method for network meta-analysis?).
UPDATE: Upon feedback from GGA and extensive search, we can mention as potentially suitable approaches: a Bayesian method proposed by Menten and Lesaffre to conduct a Bayesian network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (Menten and Lesaffre, BMC Med Res Methodol 2015), and two different Bayesian methods proposed by Nyaga et al (Nyaga et al, Stat Methods Med Res 2016; Nyaga et al, Stat Methods Med Res 2016).