Dataset Information

On random-effects meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Meta-analysis is widely used to compare and combine the results of multiple independent studies. To account for between-study heterogeneity, investigators often employ random-effects models, under which the effect sizes of interest are assumed to follow a normal distribution. It is common to estimate the mean effect size by a weighted linear combination of study-specific estimators, with the weight for each study being inversely proportional to the sum of the variance of the effect-size estimator and the estimated variance component of the random-effects distribution. Because the estimator of the variance component involved in the weights is random and correlated with study-specific effect-size estimators, the commonly adopted asymptotic normal approximation to the meta-analysis estimator is grossly inaccurate unless the number of studies is large. When individual participant data are available, one can also estimate the mean effect size by maximizing the joint likelihood. We establish the asymptotic properties of the meta-analysis estimator and the joint maximum likelihood estimator when the number of studies is either fixed or increases at a slower rate than the study sizes and we discover a surprising result: the former estimator is always at least as efficient as the latter. We also develop a novel resampling technique that improves the accuracy of statistical inference. We demonstrate the benefits of the proposed inference procedures using simulated and empirical data.

SUBMITTER: Zeng D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4681410 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

On random-effects meta-analysis.

Zeng D D Lin D Y DY

Biometrika 20150423 2

Meta-analysis is widely used to compare and combine the results of multiple independent studies. To account for between-study heterogeneity, investigators often employ random-effects models, under which the effect sizes of interest are assumed to follow a normal distribution. It is common to estimate the mean effect size by a weighted linear combination of study-specific estimators, with the weight for each study being inversely proportional to the sum of the variance of the effect-size estimato ...[more]

PMID: 26688589

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a random effects meta-analysis model, true treatment effects for each study are routinely assumed to follow a normal distribution. However, normality is a restrictive assumption and the misspecification of the random effects distribution may result in a misleading estimate of overall mean for the treatment effect, an inappropriate quantification of heterogeneity across studies and a wrongly symmetric prediction interval.MethodsWe focus on problems caused by an inappropriate normality assumption of the random effects distribution, and propose a novel random effects meta-analysis model where a Box-Cox transformation is applied to the observed treatment effect estimates. The proposed model aims to normalise an overall distribution of observed treatment effect estimates, which is sum of the within-study sampling distributions and the random effects distribution. When sampling distributions are approximately normal, non-normality in the overall distribution will be mainly due to the random effects distribution, especially when the between-study variation is large relative to the within-study variation. The Box-Cox transformation addresses this flexibly according to the observed departure from normality. We use a Bayesian approach for estimating parameters in the proposed model, and suggest summarising the meta-analysis results by an overall median, an interquartile range and a prediction interval. The model can be applied for any kind of variables once the treatment effect estimate is defined from the variable.ResultsA simulation study suggested that when the overall distribution of treatment effect estimates are skewed, the overall mean and conventional I 2 from the normal random effects model could be inappropriate summaries, and the proposed model helped reduce this issue. We illustrated the proposed model using two examples, which revealed some important differences on summary results, heterogeneity measures and prediction intervals from the normal random effects model.ConclusionsThe random effects meta-analysis with the Box-Cox transformation may be an important tool for examining robustness of traditional meta-analysis results against skewness on the observed treatment effect estimates. Further critical evaluation of the method is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND: When multiple endpoints are of interest in evidence synthesis, a multivariate meta-analysis can jointly synthesise those endpoints and utilise their correlation. A multivariate random-effects meta-analysis must incorporate and estimate the between-study correlation (rhoB). METHODS: In this paper we assess maximum likelihood estimation of a general normal model and a generalised model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis (BRMA). We consider two applied examples, one involving a diagnostic marker and the other a surrogate outcome. These motivate a simulation study where estimation properties from BRMA are compared with those from two separate univariate random-effects meta-analyses (URMAs), the traditional approach. RESULTS: The normal BRMA model estimates rhoB as -1 in both applied examples. Analytically we show this is due to the maximum likelihood estimator sensibly truncating the between-study covariance matrix on the boundary of its parameter space. Our simulations reveal this commonly occurs when the number of studies is small or the within-study variation is relatively large; it also causes upwardly biased between-study variance estimates, which are inflated to compensate for the restriction on rhoB. Importantly, this does not induce any systematic bias in the pooled estimates and produces conservative standard errors and mean-square errors. Furthermore, the normal BRMA is preferable to two normal URMAs; the mean-square error and standard error of pooled estimates is generally smaller in the BRMA, especially given data missing at random. For meta-analysis of proportions we then show that a generalised BRMA model is better still. This correctly uses a binomial rather than normal distribution, and produces better estimates than the normal BRMA and also two generalised URMAs; however the model may sometimes not converge due to difficulties estimating rhoB. CONCLUSION: A BRMA model offers numerous advantages over separate univariate synthesises; this paper highlights some of these benefits in both a normal and generalised modelling framework, and examines the estimation of between-study correlation to aid practitioners.

Dataset Information

On random-effects meta-analysis.

Publications

On random-effects meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets