» Articles » PMID: 12111921

Issues in the Selection of a Summary Statistic for Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials with Binary Outcomes

Overview
Journal Stat Med
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Public Health
Date 2002 Jul 12
PMID 12111921
Citations 198
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Meta-analysis of Censored Adverse Events.

Qi X, Zhou S, Peterson C, Wang Y, Fang X, Wang M N Engl J Stat Data Sci. 2025; 2(3):380-392.

PMID: 39991459 PMC: 11845246. DOI: 10.51387/24-nejsds62.


Nutrition users' guides: systematic reviews part 1 -structured guide for methodological assessment, interpretation and application of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of non-randomised nutritional epidemiology studies.

Zeraatkar D, de Souza R, Guyatt G, Bala M, Alonso-Coello P, Johnston B BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2025; 7(2):e000835.

PMID: 39882294 PMC: 11773667. DOI: 10.1136/bmjnph-2023-000835.


Preoperative and intraoperative neuromonitoring and mapping techniques impact oncological and functional outcomes in supratentorial function-eloquent brain tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Baig Mirza A, Vastani A, Suvarna R, Rashed S, Al-Omari A, Mthunzi E EClinicalMedicine. 2025; 80:103055.

PMID: 39867964 PMC: 11764091. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.103055.


Reporting of cluster randomised crossover trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration.

McKenzie J, Taljaard M, Hemming K, Arnup S, Giraudeau B, Eldridge S BMJ. 2025; 388():e080472.

PMID: 39761979 PMC: 11701780. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-080472.


Estimating relative risks and risk differences in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review of current practice.

Thompson J, Watson S, Middleton L, Hemming K Trials. 2025; 26(1):1.

PMID: 39748241 PMC: 11694472. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08690-w.