Dataset Information

Meta-analysis using flexible random-effects distribution models.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In meta-analysis, the normal distribution assumption has been adopted in most systematic reviews of random-effects distribution models due to its computational and conceptual simplicity. However, this restrictive model assumption is possibly unsuitable and might have serious influences in practices.

Methods

We provide two examples of real-world evidence that clearly show that the normal distribution assumption is explicitly unsuitable. We propose new random-effects meta-analysis methods using five flexible random-effects distribution models that can flexibly regulate skewness, kurtosis and tailweight: skew normal distribution, skew t-distribution, asymmetric Subbotin distribution, Jones-Faddy distribution, and sinh-arcsinh distribution. We also developed a statistical package, flexmeta, that can easily perform these methods.

Results

Using the flexible random-effects distribution models, the results of the two meta-analyses were markedly altered, potentially influencing the overall conclusions of these systematic reviews.

Conclusions

The restrictive normal distribution assumption in the random-effects model can yield misleading conclusions. The proposed flexible methods can provide more precise conclusions in systematic reviews.

SUBMITTER: Noma H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9424185 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analysis Using Flexible Random-effects Distribution Models.

Noma Hisashi H Nagashima Kengo K Kato Shogo S Teramukai Satoshi S Furukawa Toshi A TA

Journal of epidemiology 20210622 10

<h4>Background</h4>In meta-analysis, the normal distribution assumption has been adopted in most systematic reviews of random-effects distribution models due to its computational and conceptual simplicity. However, this restrictive model assumption is possibly unsuitable and might have serious influences in practices.<h4>Methods</h4>We provide two examples of real-world evidence that clearly show that the normal distribution assumption is explicitly unsuitable. We propose new random-effects meta ...[more]

PMID: 33583933

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe rapid growth of high-throughput sequencing-based microbiome profiling has yielded tremendous insights into human health and physiology. Data generated from high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicons are often preprocessed into composition or relative abundance. However, reproducibility has been lacking due to the myriad of different experimental and computational approaches taken in these studies. Microbiome studies may report varying results on the same topic, therefore, meta-analyses examining different microbiome studies to provide consistent and robust results are important. So far, there is still a lack of implemented methods to properly examine differential relative abundances of microbial taxonomies and to perform meta-analysis examining the heterogeneity and overall effects across microbiome studies.ResultsWe developed an R package 'metamicrobiomeR' that applies Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape (GAMLSS) with a zero-inflated beta (BEZI) family (GAMLSS-BEZI) for analysis of microbiome relative abundance datasets. Both simulation studies and application to real microbiome data demonstrate that GAMLSS-BEZI well performs in testing differential relative abundances of microbial taxonomies. Importantly, the estimates from GAMLSS-BEZI are log (odds ratio) of relative abundances between comparison groups and thus are analogous between microbiome studies. As such, we also apply random effects meta-analysis models to pool estimates and their standard errors across microbiome studies. We demonstrate the meta-analysis examples and highlight the utility of our package on four studies comparing gut microbiomes between male and female infants in the first six months of life.ConclusionsGAMLSS-BEZI allows proper examination of microbiome relative abundance data. Random effects meta-analysis models can be directly applied to pool comparable estimates and their standard errors to evaluate the overall effects and heterogeneity across microbiome studies. The examples and workflow using our 'metamicrobiomeR' package are reproducible and applicable for the analyses and meta-analyses of other microbiome studies.