An empirical study using permutation-based resampling in meta-regression

BackgroundIn meta-regression, as the number of trials in the analyses decreases, the risk of false positives or false negatives increases. This is partly due to the assumption of normality that may not hold in small samples. Creation of a distribution from the observed trials using permutation methods to calculate P values may allow for less spurious findings. Permutation has not been empirically tested in meta-regression. The objective of this study was to perform an empirical investigation to explore the differences in results for meta-analyses on a small number of trials using standard large sample approaches verses permutation-based methods for meta-regression.MethodsWe isolated a sample of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) for interventions that have a small number of trials (herbal medicine trials). Trials were then grouped by herbal species and condition and assessed for methodological quality using the Jadad scale, and data were extracted for each outcome. Finally, we performed meta-analyses on the primary outcome of each group of trials and meta-regression for methodological quality subgroups within each meta-analysis. We used large sample methods and permutation methods in our meta-regression modeling. We then compared final models and final P values between methods.ResultsWe collected 110 trials across 5 intervention/outcome pairings and 5 to 10 trials per covariate. When applying large sample methods and permutation-based methods in our backwards stepwise regression the covariates in the final models were identical in all cases. The P values for the covariates in the final model were larger in 78% (7/9) of the cases for permutation and identical for 22% (2/9) of the cases.ConclusionsWe present empirical evidence that permutation-based resampling may not change final models when using backwards stepwise regression, but may increase P values in meta-regression of multiple covariates for relatively small amount of trials.

[1]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta‐regression , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  V. Flack,et al.  Frequency of Selecting Noise Variables in Subset Regression Analysis: A Simulation Study , 1987 .

[3]  Paul Landais,et al.  Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  George Davey Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis: Beyond the grand mean? , 1997, BMJ.

[5]  W. G. Cochran The combination of estimates from different experiments. , 1954 .

[6]  D. Petitti,et al.  Approaches to heterogeneity in meta‐analysis , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  B. Gaster,et al.  St John's wort for depression: a systematic review. , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.

[9]  A D Oxman,et al.  Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of herbal medicine interventions. , 2006, The American journal of medicine.

[11]  J. Concato,et al.  A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[13]  S. Thompson,et al.  How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  J. Concato,et al.  Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[16]  E. Antman,et al.  Advantages and limitations of metaanalytic regressions of clinical trials data. , 1992, The Online journal of current clinical trials.

[17]  P. A. van den Brandt,et al.  IMPACT OF QUALITY ITEMS ON STUDY OUTCOME , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[18]  David Moher,et al.  Reporting Randomized, Controlled Trials of Herbal Interventions: An Elaborated CONSORT Statement , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  William D Fraser,et al.  Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: needs, resources and challenges. , 2008, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.

[20]  David Pee,et al.  Return to a Note on Screening Regression Equations , 1989 .

[21]  Laurence S. Freedman,et al.  The problem of underestimating the residual error variance in forward stepwise regression , 1992 .

[22]  J. Hilden,et al.  Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[23]  P Peduzzi,et al.  Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis. I. Background, goals, and general strategy. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[25]  Christopher H Schmid,et al.  Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough , 1998, The Lancet.

[26]  Yifan Huang,et al.  To permute or not to permute , 2006, Bioinform..

[27]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice , 2002, Journal of health services research & policy.

[28]  S. Willich,et al.  Characteristics and Quality of Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture, Herbal Medicines, and Homeopathy , 2003, Complementary Medicine Research.

[29]  A Whitehead,et al.  A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. , 1991, Statistics in medicine.

[30]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .