Literature DB >> 18416445

A method for the meta-analysis of mutually exclusive binary outcomes.

Thomas A Trikalinos1, Ingram Olkin.   

Abstract

Meta-analyses of multiple outcomes need to take into account the within-study correlation across the different outcomes. Here we focus on the meta-analysis of dichotomous outcomes that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Correlations between effect sizes for mutually exclusive outcomes are negative and can be obtained from data already available. We present both fixed-effects and random-effects methods that account for the negative correlations and yield correct simultaneous confidence intervals for both the marginal outcome-specific effect sizes and the relative effect sizes between outcomes. Formulae for the odds ratio, risk ratio, risk difference, and the differences in the arcsin-transformed risks are provided. An example of a meta-analysis of randomized trials of radiotherapy and mastectomy with axillary lymph node clearance versus only mastectomy with axillary clearance for early breast cancer is presented. The mutually exclusive outcomes of breast cancer deaths and deaths secondary to other causes are examined in separate meta-analyses, and also by taking the between-outcome correlation into account. We argue that mutually exclusive outcomes in the meta-analyses of binary data are optimally analyzed in a multinomial setting. This may also be applicable when a meta-analysis examines only one out of several mutually exclusive outcomes. For large sample sizes and/or low event counts, the covariances between outcome-specific effect sizes are small, and either ignoring them or accounting for them would result in similar estimates for any practical purpose. However, meta-analysts should explore the robustness of the findings from individual meta-analyses when mutually exclusive outcomes are assessed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18416445     DOI: 10.1002/sim.3299

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


  10 in total

1.  Meta-analysis in medical research.

Authors:  A B Haidich
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 0.471

Review 2.  Addressing multimorbidity in evidence integration and synthesis.

Authors:  Thomas A Trikalinos; Jodi B Segal; Cynthia M Boyd
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Multivariate meta-analysis: potential and promise.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Richard Riley; Ian R White
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A multivariate model for the meta-analysis of study level survival data at multiple times.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Katie Rollins; Patrick Coughlin
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 5.273

5.  Indirect comparisons of ranibizumab and dexamethasone in macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.

Authors:  Howard H Z Thom; Gorana Capkun; Richard M Nixon; Alberto Ferreira
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Multivariate meta-analysis using individual participant data.

Authors:  R D Riley; M J Price; D Jackson; M Wardle; F Gueyffier; J Wang; J A Staessen; I R White
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 5.273

7.  Shared parameter model for competing risks and different data summaries in meta-analysis: Implications for common and rare outcomes.

Authors:  Howard Thom; José A López-López; Nicky J Welton
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 5.273

8.  Multivariate meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: characteristics and predictors of borrowing of strength from Cochrane reviews.

Authors:  Miriam Hattle; Danielle L Burke; Thomas Trikalinos; Christopher H Schmid; Yong Chen; Dan Jackson; Richard D Riley
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2022-07-26

9.  Estimating within-study covariances in multivariate meta-analysis with multiple outcomes.

Authors:  Yinghui Wei; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate meta-analyses in Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth reviews with multiple binary outcomes.

Authors:  Malcolm J Price; Helen A Blake; Sara Kenyon; Ian R White; Dan Jackson; Jamie J Kirkham; James P Neilson; Jonathan J Deeks; Richard D Riley
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 5.273

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.