Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: The quality effects model

被引:168
作者
Doi, Suhail A. R. [1 ]
Barendregt, Jan J. [2 ,3 ]
Khan, Shahjahan [4 ]
Thalib, Lukman [5 ]
Williams, Gail M. [3 ]
机构
[1] Australian Natl Univ, Res Sch Populat Hlth, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
[2] Epigear Int, Sunrise Beach, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Sch Populat Hlth, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[4] Univ So Queensland, Sch Agr Computat & Environm, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia
[5] Kuwait Univ, Dept Community Med, Kuwait, Kuwait
关键词
Fixed effects; Heterogeneity; Meta-analysis; Quasi-likelihood; Quality effects; Random effects; SIMULATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.010
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
This article examines the performance of the updated quality effects (QE) estimator for meta-analysis of heterogeneous studies. It is shown that this approach leads to a decreased mean squared error (MSE) of the estimator while maintaining the nominal level of coverage probability of the confidence interval. Extensive simulation studies confirm that this approach leads to the maintenance of the correct coverage probability of the confidence interval, regardless of the level of heterogeneity, as well as a lower observed variance compared to the random effects (RE) model. The QE model is robust to subjectivity in quality assessment down to completely random entry, in which case its MSE equals that of the RE estimator. When the proposed QE method is applied to a meta-analysis of magnesium for myocardial infarction data, the pooled mortality odds ratio (OR) becomes 0.81 (95% CI 0.61-1.08) which favors the larger studies but also reflects the increased uncertainty around the pooled estimate. In comparison, under the RE model, the pooled mortality OR is 0.71 (95% CI 0.57-0.89) which is less conservative than that of the QE results. The new estimation method has been implemented into the free meta-analysis software MetaXL which allows comparison of alternative estimators and can be downloaded from www.epigear.com. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:123 / 129
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Combining heterogenous studies using the random-effects model is a mistake and leads to inconclusive meta-analyses [J].
Al khalaf, Mohamad M. ;
Thalib, Lukman ;
Doi, Suhail A. R. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (02) :119-123
[2]   A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis [J].
Brockwell, SE ;
Gordon, IR .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (06) :825-840
[3]   The design of simulation studies in medical statistics [J].
Burton, Andrea ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Royston, Patrick ;
Holder, Roger L. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2006, 25 (24) :4279-4292
[4]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[5]   INCORPORATING VARIATIONS IN THE QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL RANDOMIZED TRIALS INTO METAANALYSIS [J].
DETSKY, AS ;
NAYLOR, CD ;
OROURKE, K ;
MCGEER, AJ ;
LABBE, KA .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1992, 45 (03) :255-265
[6]   A quality-effects model for meta-analysis [J].
Doi, Suhail A. R. ;
Thalib, Lukman .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 19 (01) :94-100
[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]   Simulation Comparison of the Quality Effects and Random Effects Methods of Meta-analysis [J].
Doi, Suhail A. R. ;
Barendregt, Jan J. ;
Khan, Shahjahan ;
Thalib, Lukman ;
Williams, Gail M. .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2015, 26 (04) :E42-E44
[9]   Evidence Synthesis for Medical Decision Making and the Appropriate Use of Quality Scores [J].
Doi, Suhail A. R. .
CLINICAL MEDICINE & RESEARCH, 2014, 12 (1-2) :40-46
[10]   Meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials: An empirical example [J].
Doi, Suhail A. R. ;
Barendregt, Jan J. ;
Mozurkewich, Ellen L. .
CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2011, 32 (02) :288-298