Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Mar 30;37(7):1059-1085.
doi: 10.1002/sim.7588. Epub 2018 Jan 8.

A comparison of seven random-effects models for meta-analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparison of seven random-effects models for meta-analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio

Dan Jackson et al. Stat Med. .

Abstract

Comparative trials that report binary outcome data are commonly pooled in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This type of data can be presented as a series of 2-by-2 tables. The pooled odds ratio is often presented as the outcome of primary interest in the resulting meta-analysis. We examine the use of 7 models for random-effects meta-analyses that have been proposed for this purpose. The first of these models is the conventional one that uses normal within-study approximations and a 2-stage approach. The other models are generalised linear mixed models that perform the analysis in 1 stage and have the potential to provide more accurate inference. We explore the implications of using these 7 models in the context of a Cochrane Review, and we also perform a simulation study. We conclude that generalised linear mixed models can result in better statistical inference than the conventional 2-stage approach but also that this type of model presents issues and difficulties. These challenges include more demanding numerical methods and determining the best way to model study specific baseline risks. One possible approach for analysts is to specify a primary model prior to performing the systematic review but also to present the results using other models in a sensitivity analysis. Only one of the models that we investigate is found to perform poorly so that any of the other models could be considered for either the primary or the sensitivity analysis.

Keywords: binomial distribution; exact within-study distributions; random-effects models; statistical computing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box plots of the estimates of θ (top) and τ 2 (bottom) from setting 1 (the defaults). The true values of θ=0 and τ 2=0.024 are shown as dashed lines. M1(D) and M1(R) indicate that model 1 has been fitted using the DerSimonian and Laird and the REML estimator, respectively. M7* indicates that model 7 has been supplemented with results from the Peto approximation

References

    1. Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JPT. Characteristics of meta‐analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews: a cross‐sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:160. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Effect measures for meta‐analyses of trials with binary outcomes In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care. London: BMJ Books; 2001.
    1. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:881‐889. - PubMed
    1. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter J, Olkin I. Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta‐analysis with zero cells. Stat Med. 2009;28:721‐738. - PubMed
    1. Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta‐analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2002;21:1575‐1600. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources