Literature DB >> 12111921

Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes.

Jonathan J Deeks1.   

Abstract

Meta-analysis of binary data involves the computation of a weighted average of summary statistics calculated for each trial. The selection of the appropriate summary statistic is a subject of debate due to conflicts in the relative importance of mathematical properties and the ability to intuitively interpret results. This paper explores the process of identifying a summary statistic most likely to be consistent across trials when there is variation in control group event rates. Four summary statistics are considered: odds ratios (OR); risk differences (RD) and risk ratios of beneficial (RR(B)); and harmful outcomes (RR(H)). Each summary statistic corresponds to a different pattern of predicted absolute benefit of treatment with variation in baseline risk, the greatest difference in patterns of prediction being between RR(B) and RR(H). Selection of a summary statistic solely based on identification of the best-fitting model by comparing tests of heterogeneity is problematic, principally due to low numbers of trials. It is proposed that choice of a summary statistic should be guided by both empirical evidence and clinically informed debate as to which model is likely to be closest to the expected pattern of treatment benefit across baseline risks. Empirical investigations comparing the four summary statistics on a sample of 551 systematic reviews provide evidence that the RR and OR models are on average more consistent than RD, there being no difference on average between RR and OR. From a second sample of 114 meta-analyses evidence indicates that for interventions aimed at preventing an undesirable event, greatest absolute benefits are observed in trials with the highest baseline event rates, corresponding to the model of constant RR(H). The appropriate selection for a particular meta-analysis may depend on understanding reasons for variation in control group event rates; in some situations uncertainty about the choice of summary statistic will remain. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12111921     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  164 in total

Review 1.  Dobutamine for patients with severe heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Catherine L Tacon; John McCaffrey; Anthony Delaney
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 2.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

Review 3.  Frequency of treatment-effect modification affecting indirect comparisons: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael Coory; Susan Jordan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Consistently estimating absolute risk difference when translating evidence to jurisdictions of interest.

Authors:  Simon Eckermann; Michael Coory; Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Interventions to increase seasonal influenza vaccine coverage in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

Authors:  Theodore Lytras; Frixos Kopsachilis; Elisavet Mouratidou; Dimitris Papamichail; Stefanos Bonovas
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 6.  Antiviral treatment and other therapeutic interventions for herpes simplex virus epithelial keratitis.

Authors:  Kirk R Wilhelmus
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-01-09

7.  Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  Stefan Sauerland; Christoph M Seiler
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Stent-supported angioplasty versus endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: evidence from current randomized trials.

Authors:  R Zahn; M Hochadel; A Grau; J Senges
Journal:  Z Kardiol       Date:  2005-12

9.  Methodology for the development of antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Susan L Norris; Sam Schulman; Jack Hirsh; Mark H Eckman; Elie A Akl; Mark Crowther; Per Olav Vandvik; John W Eikelboom; Marian S McDonagh; Sandra Zelman Lewis; David D Gutterman; Deborah J Cook; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.410

10.  Early enteral nutrition, provided within 24 h of injury or intensive care unit admission, significantly reduces mortality in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Gordon S Doig; Philippa T Heighes; Fiona Simpson; Elizabeth A Sweetman; Andrew R Davies
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.