Metaprop: A Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data

被引:1688
作者
Nyaga V.N. [1 ]
Arbyn M. [1 ]
Aerts M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Juliette Wytsmanstraat 14, Brussels
[2] Center for Statistics, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building D, Diepenbeek
关键词
Binomial; Confidence intervals; Freeman-tukey double arcsine transformation; Logistic-normal; Meta-analysis; Stata;
D O I
10.1186/2049-3258-72-39
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Meta-analyses have become an essential tool in synthesizing evidence on clinical and epidemiological questions derived from a multitude of similar studies assessing the particular issue. Appropriate and accessible statistical software is needed to produce the summary statistic of interest. Methods: Metaprop is a statistical program implemented to perform meta-analyses of proportions in Stata. It builds further on the existing Stata procedure metan which is typically used to pool effects (risk ratios, odds ratios, differences of risks or means) but which is also used to pool proportions. Metaprop implements procedures which are specific to binomial data and allows computation of exact binomial and score test-based confidence intervals. It provides appropriate methods for dealing with proportions close to or at the margins where the normal approximation procedures often break down, by use of the binomial distribution to model the within-study variability or by allowing Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilize the variances. Metaprop was applied on two published meta-analyses: 1) prevalence of HPV-infection in women with a Pap smear showing ASC-US; 2) cure rate after treatment for cervical precancer using cold coagulation. Results: The first meta-analysis showed a pooled HPV-prevalence of 43% (95% CI: 38%-48%). In the second meta-analysis, the pooled percentage of cured women was 94% (95% CI: 86%-97%). Conclusion: By using metaprop, no studies with 0% or 100% proportions were excluded from the meta-analysis. Furthermore, study specific and pooled confidence intervals always were within admissible values, contrary to the original publication, where metan was used. © 2014 Nyaga et al.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 10
页数:9
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
Agresti A., Coull B.A., Approximate is better than 'exact' for interval estimation of binomial proportions, Am Stat, 52, 2, pp. 119-126, (1998)
[2]  
Breslow N.E., Clayton D.G., Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models, J AmStat Assoc, 88, pp. 9-25, (1993)
[3]  
Miller J.J., The inverse of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, AmStat, 32, 4, (1978)
[4]  
Hamza T.H., van Houwelingen H.C., Stijnen T., The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability, J Clin Epidemiol, 61, pp. 41-51, (2008)
[5]  
Molenberghs G., Verbeke G., Iddib S., Demetrio C.G.B., A combined beta and normal random-effects model for repeated, over-dispersed binary and binomial data, JMultivar Anal, 111, pp. 94-109, (2012)
[6]  
DerSimonian R., Laird N., Meta-analysis in clinical trials, Control Clin Trials, 7, pp. 177-188, (1986)
[7]  
Engel E., Keen A., A simple approach for the analysis of generalized linear mixed models, Stat Neerl, 48, pp. 1-22, (1994)
[8]  
Molenberghs G., Verbeke G., Demetrio C.G.B., Vieira A.M.C., A family of generalized linearmodels for repeatedmeasures with normal and conjugate randomeffects, Stat Sci, 3, pp. 325-347, (2010)
[9]  
Jackson D., Bowden J., Baker R., How does the Dersimonian and Laird procedure for randomeffectsmeta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts?, J Stat Plan Inference, 140, pp. 961-970, (2010)
[10]  
Harris R., Bradburn M., Deeks J., Harbord R., Altman D., Sterne J., metan:fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis, Stata J, 8, pp. 3-28, (2008)