A confidence interval robust to publication bias for random-effects meta-analysis of few studies

被引:3
作者
Henmi, Masayuki [1 ]
Hattori, Satoshi [2 ,3 ]
Friede, Tim [4 ]
机构
[1] Inst Stat Math, Tachikawa, Tokyo, Japan
[2] Osaka Univ, Grad Sch Med, Dept Biomed Stat, Osaka, Japan
[3] Osaka Univ, Inst Open & Transdisciplinary Res Initiat, Osaka, Japan
[4] Univ Med Ctr Gottingen, Dept Med Stat, Gottingen, Germany
关键词
between‐ trial heterogeneity; confidence interval; coverage probability; meta‐ analysis; publication bias;
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1482
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
In meta-analyses including only few studies, the estimation of the between-study heterogeneity is challenging. Furthermore, the assessment of publication bias is difficult as standard methods such as visual inspection or formal hypothesis tests in funnel plots do not provide adequate guidance. Previously, Henmi and Copas (Statistics in Medicine 2010, 29: 2969-2983) proposed a confidence interval for the overall effect in random-effects meta-analysis that is robust to publication bias to some extent. As is evident from their simulations, the confidence intervals have improved coverage compared with standard methods. To our knowledge, the properties of their method have never been assessed for meta-analyses including fewer than five studies. In this manuscript, we propose a variation of the method by Henmi and Copas employing an improved estimator of the between-study heterogeneity, in particular when dealing with few studies only. In a simulation study, the proposed method is compared to several competitors. Overall, we found that our method outperforms the others in terms of coverage probabilities.
引用
收藏
页码:674 / 679
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Methods for evidence synthesis in the case of very few studies [J].
Bender, Ralf ;
Friede, Tim ;
Koch, Armin ;
Kuss, Oliver ;
Schlattmann, Peter ;
Schwarzer, Guido ;
Skipka, Guido .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2018, 9 (03) :382-392
[2]   A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis [J].
Brockwell, SE ;
Gordon, IR .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (06) :825-840
[3]   Avoiding zero between-study variance estimates in random-effects meta-analysis [J].
Chung, Yeojin ;
Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia ;
Choi, In-Hee .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (23) :4071-4089
[4]   A bound for publication bias based on the fraction of unpublished studies [J].
Copas, J ;
Jackson, D .
BIOMETRICS, 2004, 60 (01) :146-153
[5]  
Copas J, 2000, Biostatistics, V1, P247, DOI 10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.247
[6]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[7]   Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model [J].
Doi, Suhail A. R. ;
Barendregt, Jan J. ;
Khan, Shahjahan ;
Thalib, Lukman ;
Williams, Gail M. .
CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2015, 45 :130-138
[8]   A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis [J].
Duval, S ;
Tweedie, R .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 95 (449) :89-98
[9]   Valid inference in random effects meta-analysis [J].
Follmann, DA ;
Proschan, MA .
BIOMETRICS, 1999, 55 (03) :732-737
[10]   Meta-analysis of few small studies in orphan diseases [J].
Friede, Tim ;
Roever, Christian ;
Wandel, Simon ;
Neuenschwander, Beat .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2017, 8 (01) :79-91