Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jackson D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5590730 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4681410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recently, multivariate random-effects meta-analysis models have received a great deal of attention, despite its greater complexity compared to univariate meta-analyses. One of its advantages is its ability to account for the within-study and between-study correlations. However, the standard inference procedures, such as the maximum likelihood or maximum restricted likelihood inference, require the within-study correlations, which are usually unavailable. In addition, the standard inference procedures suffer from the problem of singular estimated covariance matrix. In this paper, we propose a pseudolikelihood method to overcome the aforementioned problems. The pseudolikelihood method does not require within-study correlations and is not prone to singular covariance matrix problem. In addition, it can properly estimate the covariance between pooled estimates for different outcomes, which enables valid inference on functions of pooled estimates, and can be applied to meta-analysis where some studies have outcomes missing completely at random. Simulation studies show that the pseudolikelihood method provides unbiased estimates for functions of pooled estimates, well-estimated standard errors, and confidence intervals with good coverage probability. Furthermore, the pseudolikelihood method is found to maintain high relative efficiency compared to that of the standard inferences with known within-study correlations. We illustrate the proposed method through three meta-analyses for comparison of prostate cancer treatment, for the association between paraoxonase 1 activities and coronary heart disease, and for the association between homocysteine level and coronary heart disease.
| S-EPMC4305202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) allows an unbiased survey of the entire transcriptome in a high-throughput manner. A major application of RNA-Seq is to detect differential isoform expression across experimental conditions, which is of great biological interest due to its direct relevance to protein function and disease pathogenesis. Detection of differential isoform expression is challenging because of uncertainty in isoform expression estimation owing to ambiguous reads and variability in precision of the estimates across samples. It is desirable to have a method that can account for these issues and is flexible enough to allow adjustment for covariates.ResultsIn this paper, we present MetaDiff, a random-effects meta-regression model that naturally fits for the above purposes. Through extensive simulations and analysis of an RNA-Seq dataset on human heart failure, we show that the random-effects meta-regression approach is computationally fast, reliable, and can improve the power of differential expression analysis while controlling for false positives due to the effect of covariates or confounding variables. In contrast, several existing methods either fail to control false discovery rate or have reduced power in the presence of covariates or confounding variables. The source code, compiled JAR package and documentation of MetaDiff are freely available at https://github.com/jiach/MetaDiff.ConclusionOur results indicate that random-effects meta-regression offers a flexible framework for differential expression analysis of isoforms, particularly when gene expression is influenced by other variables.
| S-EPMC4489045 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5517826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In ecology and evolution generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) are becoming increasingly used to test for differences in variation by treatment at multiple hierarchical levels. Yet, the specific sampling schemes that optimize the power of an experiment to detect differences in random effects by treatment/group remain unknown. In this paper we develop a blueprint for conducting power analyses for GLMMs focusing on detecting differences in variance by treatment. We present parameterization and power analyses for random-intercepts and random-slopes GLMMs because of their generality as focal parameters for most applications and because of their immediate applicability to emerging questions in the field of behavioral ecology. We focus on the extreme case of hierarchically structured binomial data, though the framework presented here generalizes easily to any error distribution model. First, we determine the optimal ratio of individuals to repeated measures within individuals that maximizes power to detect differences by treatment in among-individual variation in intercept, among-individual variation in slope, and within-individual variation in intercept. Second, we explore how power to detect differences in target variance parameters is affected by total variation. Our results indicate heterogeneity in power across ratios of individuals to repeated measures with an optimal ratio determined by both the target variance parameter and total sample size. Additionally, power to detect each variance parameter was low overall (in most cases >1,000 total observations per treatment needed to achieve 80% power) and decreased with increasing variance in non-target random effects. With growing interest in variance as the parameter of inquiry, these power analyses provide a crucial component for designing experiments focused on detecting differences in variance. We hope to inspire novel experimental designs in ecology and evolution investigating the causes and implications of individual-level phenotypic variance, such as the adaptive significance of within-individual variation.
| S-EPMC4579019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The pooled estimate of the average effect is of primary interest when fitting the random-effects model for meta-analysis. However estimates of study specific effects, for example those displayed on forest plots, are also often of interest. In this tutorial, we present the case, with the accompanying statistical theory, for estimating the study specific true effects using so called 'empirical Bayes estimates' or 'Best Unbiased Linear Predictions' under the random-effects model. These estimates can be accompanied by prediction intervals that indicate a plausible range of study specific true effects. We coalesce and elucidate the available literature and illustrate the methodology using two published meta-analyses as examples. We also perform a simulation study that reveals that coverage probability of study specific prediction intervals are substantially too low if the between-study variance is small but not negligible. Researchers need to be aware of this defect when interpreting prediction intervals. We also show how empirical Bayes estimates, accompanied with study specific prediction intervals, can embellish forest plots. We hope that this tutorial will serve to provide a clear theoretical underpinning for this methodology and encourage its widespread adoption.
| S-EPMC8361666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic tests is becoming a well established approach when studies present one two-by-two table or one pair of sensitivity and specificity. When studies present multiple thresholds for test positivity, usually meta-analysts reduce the data to a two-by-two table or take one threshold value at a time and apply the well developed meta-analytic approaches. However, this approach does not fully exploit the data.MethodsIn this paper we generalize the bivariate random effects approach to the situation where test results are presented with k thresholds for test positivity, resulting in a 2 by (k+1) table per study. The model can be fitted with standard likelihood procedures in statistical packages such as SAS (Proc NLMIXED). We follow a multivariate random effects approach; i.e., we assume that each study estimates a study specific ROC curve that can be viewed as randomly sampled from the population of all ROC curves of such studies. In contrast to the bivariate case, where nothing can be said about the shape of study specific ROC curves without additional untestable assumptions, the multivariate model can be used to describe study specific ROC curves. The models are easily extended with study level covariates.ResultsThe method is illustrated using published meta-analysis data. The SAS NLMIXED syntax is given in the appendix.ConclusionWe conclude that the multivariate random effects meta-analysis approach is an appropriate and convenient framework to meta-analyse studies with multiple threshold without losing any information by dichotomizing the test results.
| S-EPMC2787531 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Network meta-analysis is used to simultaneously compare multiple treatments in a single analysis. However, network meta-analyses may exhibit inconsistency, where direct and different forms of indirect evidence are not in agreement with each other, even after allowing for between-study heterogeneity. Models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects have the dual aim of allowing for inconsistencies and estimating average treatment effects across the whole network. To date, two classical estimation methods for fitting this type of model have been developed: a method of moments that extends DerSimonian and Laird's univariate method and maximum likelihood estimation. However, the Paule and Mandel estimator is another recommended classical estimation method for univariate meta-analysis. In this paper, we extend the Paule and Mandel method so that it can be used to fit models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. We apply all three estimation methods to a variety of examples that have been used previously and we also examine a challenging new dataset that is highly heterogenous. We perform a simulation study based on this new example. We find that the proposed Paule and Mandel method performs satisfactorily and generally better than the previously proposed method of moments because it provides more accurate inferences. Furthermore, the Paule and Mandel method possesses some advantages over likelihood-based methods because it is both semiparametric and requires no convergence diagnostics. Although restricted maximum likelihood estimation remains the gold standard, the proposed methodology is a fully viable alternative to this and other estimation methods.
| S-EPMC5720360 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC1800862 | biostudies-other
Project description:Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant. Most people in developed countries have detectable serum concentrations. Lower birth weight has been associated with serum PFOS in studies world-wide, many of which have been published only recently.MethodsTo facilitate a causal assessment of the birth weight and PFOS association, we updated previous meta-analyses of the association and employed a method that facilitated inclusion of all available data in one analysis. Our analysis was based on observations from 29 studies.ResultsThe random effects summary was -3.22 g/ng/ml (95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.11, -1.33). In a subgroup analysis stratified by when in pregnancy the PFOS concentration was measured, the summary for the early group was -1.35 (95% CI = -2.33, -0.37) and for the later group was -7.17 (95% CI = -10.93, -3.41). In a meta-regression model including a term for timing of blood draw, the intercept was slightly positive but essentially zero (0.59 g/ng/ml, 95% CI = -1.94, 3.11). In other words, the model indicated that when blood was drawn at the very beginning of pregnancy, there was essentially no relation of birth weight to PFOS. The results from the subgroup analyses differed from those from the model because the average gestational age at blood draw in the early group was 14 weeks, when bias would still be expected. A stronger inverse association in Asian studies was not completely explained by their blood draws being from later in pregnancy.ConclusionsThe evidence was weakly or not supportive of a causal association.
| S-EPMC7941775 | biostudies-literature