A comparison of seven random-effects models for meta-analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 7, 2018, Pages 1059-1085

  Jackson, Dan ^a   Law, Martin ^a   Stijnen, Theo ^b   Viechtbauer, Wolfgang ^c   White, Ian R ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

binomial distribution; exact within study distributions; random effects models; statistical computing

Indexed keywords

BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); ODDS RATIO; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BIAS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; LOGISTIC MODELS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ODDS RATIO;

EID: 85042931759     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.7588     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JPT. Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:160.
2. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Effect measures for meta-analyses of trials with binary outcomes. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care. London: BMJ Books; 2001.
3. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:881-889.
4. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter J, Olkin I. Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta-analysis with zero cells. Stat Med. 2009;28:721-738.
5. Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2002;21:1575-1600.
6. Jackson D, Baker R, Bowden J. A sensitivity analysis framework for the treatment effect measure used in the meta-analysis of comparative binary data from randomised controlled trials. Stat Med. 2013;32:931-940.
7. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J Royal Stat Soc Series A. 2009;15:137-159.
8. Hoaglin DC. Misunderstandings about Q and ‘Cochran's Q test' in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2016;16:485-495.
9. Shuster JJ, Walker MA. Low-event-rate meta-analyses of clinical trials: implementing good practices. Stat Med. 2016;35:2467-2478.
10. Simmonds M, Higgins JPT. A general framework for the use of logistic regression models in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;35:2858-2877.
11. Van Houwelingen H, Zwinderman KH, Stijnen T. A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1993;12:2273-2284.
12. Stijnen T, Taye HH, Özdemir P. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med. 2010;29:3046-3067.
13. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/; 2016.
14. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1-48.
15. Kuss O. Statistical methods for meta-analyses including information from studies without any events—add nothing to nothing and succeed nevertheless. Stat Med. 2015;34:1097-1116.
16. Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JP. The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:646-654.
17. Hartung J, Knapp G. A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat Med. 2001;20:3875-3889.
18. Noma H. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections. Stat Med. 2011;30:3304-3312.
19. Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, et al. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7:55-79.
20. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-188.
21. Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30:261-293.
22. Turner RM, Omar RZ, Yang M, Goldstein H, Thompson SG. A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2000;19:3417-3432.
23. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67:1-48.
24. Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985;27:335-371.
25. Sato T. Bias in the Peto one-step estimator for the common odds ratio. Bull Inf Cybern. 2005;37:13-18.
26. Bohning D, Mylona K, Kimber A. Meta-analysis of clinical trials with rare events. Biom J. 2015;52:633-648.
27. Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med. 1995;14:2685-2699.
28. Senn S. Hans Van Houwelingen and the art of summing up. Biom J. 2010;52:85-94.
29. Choi L, Blume JD, Dupont WD. Elucidating the foundations of statistical inference with 2×2 tables. Plos One. 2015;10:e0121263.
30. Kabra SK, Lodha R, Hilton DJ. Antibiotics for preventing complications in children with measles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. CD001477. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001477.pub3.
31. Jackson D, Bowden J. A re-evaluation of the ‘quantile approximation method’ for random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2009;28:338-348.
32. Thomas D, Platt R, Benedetti A. A comparison of analytic approaches for individual patient data meta-analyses with binary outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:28.
33. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001;20:825-840.
34. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A simple method for inference on an overall effect in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2007;26:4531-4543.
35. Jackson D, White IR, Thompson SG. Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random-effect meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2010;29:1282-1297.
36. Jackson D, Law M, Barrett JK, et al. Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. Stat Med. 2016;35:819-389.
37. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-1558.
38. White I. simsum: analyses of simulation studies including Monte Carlo error. Stata J. 2010;10:369-385.
39. Sidik K, Jonkman NK. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Stat Med. 2007;26:1964-1981.
40. Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Localio AR. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med. 2007;26:53-77.
41. Dias S, Ades AE. Absolute or relative effects? Arm-based synthesis of trial data. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7:23-28.
42. Hong H, Chu H, Zhang J, Carlin BP. Rejoinder to the discussion of “a Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons,” by S. Dias and A.E. Ades. Res Synth Methods. 2006;7:29-33.
43. Burke DL, Ensor J, Riley RD. Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ. Stat Med. 2017;36:855-875.
44. Jennrich RI, Schluchter MD. Unbalanced repeated-measures models with structured covariance matrices. Biometrics. 1986;42:805-820.