Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes
- PMID: 12111921
- DOI: 10.1002/sim.1188
Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes
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.
Similar articles
-
Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales.Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1601-23. doi: 10.1002/sim.1189. Stat Med. 2002. PMID: 12111922
-
Benefits and risks of adjunctive inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis.Clin Ther. 2008 Aug;30(8):1416-25. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.08.004. Clin Ther. 2008. PMID: 18803985
-
Estimating risk difference from relative association measures in meta-analysis can infrequently pose interpretational challenges.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):865-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.11.005. Epub 2009 Feb 20. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009. PMID: 19230610
-
Meta-analysis: role of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the prevention of peptic ulcer in NSAID users.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Jun 15;21(12):1411-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02444.x. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005. PMID: 15948807 Review.
-
[Meta-analysis of therapeutic and preventive clinical trials].Orv Hetil. 2000 Dec 17;141(51):2779-84. Orv Hetil. 2000. PMID: 11196238 Review. Hungarian.
Cited by
-
A systematic review and meta-analysis for association of Helicobacter pylori colonization and celiac disease.PLoS One. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0241156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241156. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 33657108 Free PMC article.
-
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers and the risk of COVID-19 infection or severe disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2020 Dec;31:100627. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100627. Epub 2020 Aug 27. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2020. PMID: 32875060 Free PMC article.
-
Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 3;9(9):CD011462. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011462.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. PMID: 31476800 Free PMC article.
-
Digital Biomarker-Based Interventions: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.J Med Internet Res. 2022 Dec 21;24(12):e41042. doi: 10.2196/41042. J Med Internet Res. 2022. PMID: 36542427 Free PMC article.
-
Impact and Beneficial Critical Points of Clinical Outcome in Corticosteroid Management of Adult Patients With Sepsis: Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment.Front Pharmacol. 2019 Sep 24;10:1101. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01101. eCollection 2019. Front Pharmacol. 2019. PMID: 31607929 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Medical
Miscellaneous