Likelihood-Based Random-Effect Meta-Analysis of Binary Events

Meta-analysis has been used extensively for evaluation of efficacy and safety of medical interventions. Its advantages and utilities are well known. However, recent studies have raised questions about the accuracy of the commonly used moment-based meta-analytic methods in general and for rare binary outcomes in particular. The issue is further complicated for studies with heterogeneous effect sizes. Likelihood-based mixed-effects modeling provides an alternative to moment-based methods such as inverse-variance weighted fixed- and random-effects estimators. In this article, we compare and contrast different mixed-effect modeling strategies in the context of meta-analysis. Their performance in estimation and testing of overall effect and heterogeneity are evaluated when combining results from studies with a binary outcome. Models that allow heterogeneity in both baseline rate and treatment effect across studies have low type I and type II error rates, and their estimates are the least biased among the models considered.

[1]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[2]  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.

[3]  Adnan Kastrati,et al.  A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of a percutaneous coronary intervention-based strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  Haitao Chu,et al.  Bivariate random effects models for meta-analysis of comparative studies with binary outcomes: Methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk , 2012, Statistical methods in medical research.

[5]  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.

[6]  Joel B Greenhouse,et al.  Do antidepressants cause suicidality in children? A Bayesian meta-analysis , 2006, Clinical trials.

[7]  John Mandel,et al.  Consensus Values and Weighting Factors. , 1982, Journal of research of the National Bureau of Standards.

[8]  Donald Hedeker,et al.  Longitudinal Data Analysis , 2006 .

[9]  M. McIntosh,et al.  The population risk as an explanatory variable in research synthesis of clinical trials. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayesian random effects meta‐analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  S. Thompson,et al.  Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Jonathan J Shuster,et al.  Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta‐analysis , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  S D Walter,et al.  Variation in baseline risk as an explanation of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Bayesian random effects meta‐analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales by D. E. Warn, S. G. Thompson and D. J. Spiegelhalter, Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21: 1601–1623 , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  Kurex Sidik,et al.  Simple heterogeneity variance estimation for meta‐analysis , 2005 .

[16]  Ingram Olkin,et al.  Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta‐analysis with zero cells , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Anup Amatya,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Rare Binary Adverse Event Data , 2012, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[18]  Kurex Sidik,et al.  A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  Dan Jackson,et al.  The exact distribution of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic in one‐way random effects meta‐analysis , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  C H Schmid,et al.  An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

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

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

[23]  Chukiat Viwatwongkasem,et al.  Some general points in estimating heterogeneity variance with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. , 2002, Biostatistics.

[24]  Dan Jackson,et al.  The power of the standard test for the presence of heterogeneity in meta‐analysis , 2006, Statistics in medicine.