A Bayesian sensitivity study of risk difference in the meta-analysis of binary outcomes from sparse data

In most cases, including those of discrete random variables, statistical meta-analysis is carried out using the normal random effect model. The authors argue that normal approximation does not always properly reflect the underlying uncertainty of the original discrete data. Furthermore, in the presence of rare events the results from this approximation can be very poor. This review proposes a Bayesian meta-analysis to address binary outcomes from sparse data and also introduces a simple way to examine the sensitivity of the quantities of interest in the meta-analysis with respect to the structure dependence selected. The findings suggest that for binary outcomes data it is possible to develop a Bayesian procedure, which can be directly applied to sparse data without ad hoc corrections. By choosing a suitable class of linking distributions, the authors found that a Bayesian robustness study can be easily implemented. For illustrative purposes, an example with real data is analyzed using the proposed Bayesian meta-analysis for binomial sparse data.

[1]  E. Moreno,et al.  Objective Bayesian meta‐analysis for sparse discrete data , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  S. Golder,et al.  Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[3]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta‐analytical methods with rare events , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  G. Hofmeyr,et al.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  Biondi Zoccai,et al.  Network Meta-Analysis: Evidence Synthesis With Mixed Treatment Comparison , 2014 .

[6]  Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai Network Meta-Analysis: Evidence Synthesis With Mixed Treatment Comparison , 2014 .

[7]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  Bayesian methods in meta-analysis , 2018 .

[8]  C. D. Litton,et al.  Theory of Probability (3rd Edition) , 1984 .

[9]  P. Bagos,et al.  Mixed-Effects Poisson Regression Models for Meta-Analysis of Follow-Up Studies with Constant or Varying Durations , 2009 .

[10]  F. Girón,et al.  Comparing meta-analyses for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , 2011, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[11]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  Meta-analysis of rare and adverse event data , 2002, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[12]  David R. Jones,et al.  How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  Alexander J Sutton,et al.  What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  K R Abrams,et al.  Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. , 2001, Statistical methods in medical research.

[15]  George Casella,et al.  Assessing Robustness of Intrinsic Tests of Independence in Two-Way Contingency Tables , 2009 .

[16]  J. Berger,et al.  The Intrinsic Bayes Factor for Model Selection and Prediction , 1996 .