Petra L Graham1, John L Moran. 1. Department of Statistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. Petra.Graham@mq.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Results of meta-analyses typically conclude that future large studies may be mandated. However, the predictive ability of these estimates is deficient. We explored meta-analytic prediction intervals as means for providing a clear and appropriate future treatment summary reflecting current estimates. STUDY DESIGN: A meta-epidemiological study of binary outcome critical care meta-analyses published between 2002 and 2010. Computation of 95% DerSimonian-Laird and Bayesian random-effects meta-analytic confidence intervals (CI) and 95% credible intervals (CrI), respectively, and frequentist (PI) and Bayesian (PrI) prediction intervals for odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) were undertaken. Bayesian calculations included the probability that the OR and RR point estimates ≥1. RESULTS: Seventy-two meta-analyses from 70 articles were identified, containing between three and 80 studies each, with median nine studies. For both frequentist and Bayesian settings, 49-69% of the meta-analyses excluded the null. All significant CrI had high probabilities of efficacy/harm. The number of PI vs. PrI excluding 1 was 25% vs. 3% (OR), 26% vs. 3% (RR) of the total meta-analyses. Unsurprisingly, PI/PrI width was greater than CI/CrI width and increased with increasing heterogeneity and combination of fewer studies. CONCLUSION: Robust meta-analytic conclusions and determination of studies warranting new large trials may be more appropriately signaled by consideration of initial interval estimates with prediction intervals. Substantial heterogeneity results in exceedingly wide PIs. More caution should be exercised regarding the conclusions of a meta-analysis. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: Results of meta-analyses typically conclude that future large studies may be mandated. However, the predictive ability of these estimates is deficient. We explored meta-analytic prediction intervals as means for providing a clear and appropriate future treatment summary reflecting current estimates. STUDY DESIGN: A meta-epidemiological study of binary outcome critical care meta-analyses published between 2002 and 2010. Computation of 95% DerSimonian-Laird and Bayesian random-effects meta-analytic confidence intervals (CI) and 95% credible intervals (CrI), respectively, and frequentist (PI) and Bayesian (PrI) prediction intervals for odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) were undertaken. Bayesian calculations included the probability that the OR and RR point estimates ≥1. RESULTS: Seventy-two meta-analyses from 70 articles were identified, containing between three and 80 studies each, with median nine studies. For both frequentist and Bayesian settings, 49-69% of the meta-analyses excluded the null. All significant CrI had high probabilities of efficacy/harm. The number of PI vs. PrI excluding 1 was 25% vs. 3% (OR), 26% vs. 3% (RR) of the total meta-analyses. Unsurprisingly, PI/PrI width was greater than CI/CrI width and increased with increasing heterogeneity and combination of fewer studies. CONCLUSION: Robust meta-analytic conclusions and determination of studies warranting new large trials may be more appropriately signaled by consideration of initial interval estimates with prediction intervals. Substantial heterogeneity results in exceedingly wide PIs. More caution should be exercised regarding the conclusions of a meta-analysis. Copyright Â
Authors: Tai Lim Kim; Gwang Hun Jeong; Jae Won Yang; Keum Hwa Lee; Andreas Kronbichler; Hans J van der Vliet; Giuseppe Grosso; Fabio Galvano; Dagfinn Aune; Jong Yeob Kim; Nicola Veronese; Brendon Stubbs; Marco Solmi; Ai Koyanagi; Sung Hwi Hong; Elena Dragioti; Eunyoung Cho; Leandro F M de Rezende; Edward L Giovannucci; Jae Il Shin; Gabriele Gamerith Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: N M Milic; J Milin-Lazovic; T L Weissgerber; G Trajkovic; W M White; V D Garovic Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Guillaume Butler-Laporte; Alexander Lawandi; Ian Schiller; Mandy Yao; Nandini Dendukuri; Emily G McDonald; Todd C Lee Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Pedro Machado; Miguel Morgado; João Raposo; Marco Mendes; Cândida G Silva; Nuno Morais Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Keum Hwa Lee; Hyo Jin Seong; Gaeun Kim; Gwang Hun Jeong; Jong Yeob Kim; Hyunbong Park; Eunyoung Jung; Andreas Kronbichler; Michael Eisenhut; Brendon Stubbs; Marco Solmi; Ai Koyanagi; Sung Hwi Hong; Elena Dragioti; Leandro Fórnias Machado de Rezende; Louis Jacob; NaNa Keum; Hans J van der Vliet; Eunyoung Cho; Nicola Veronese; Giuseppe Grosso; Shuji Ogino; Mingyang Song; Joaquim Radua; Sun Jae Jung; Trevor Thompson; Sarah E Jackson; Lee Smith; Lin Yang; Hans Oh; Eun Kyoung Choi; Jae Il Shin; Edward L Giovannucci; Gabriele Gamerith Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 8.701