» Articles » PMID: 21177306

Bivariate Random Effects Models for Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies with Binary Outcomes: Methods for the Absolute Risk Difference and Relative Risk

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialties Public Health
Science
Date 2010 Dec 24
PMID 21177306
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Multivariate meta-analysis is increasingly utilised in biomedical research to combine data of multiple comparative clinical studies for evaluating drug efficacy and safety profile. When the probability of the event of interest is rare, or when the individual study sample sizes are small, a substantial proportion of studies may not have any event of interest. Conventional meta-analysis methods either exclude such studies or include them through ad hoc continuality correction by adding an arbitrary positive value to each cell of the corresponding 2 × 2 tables, which may result in less accurate conclusions. Furthermore, different continuity corrections may result in inconsistent conclusions. In this article, we discuss a bivariate Beta-binomial model derived from Sarmanov family of bivariate distributions and a bivariate generalised linear mixed effects model for binary clustered data to make valid inferences. These bivariate random effects models use all available data without ad hoc continuity corrections, and accounts for the potential correlation between treatment (or exposure) and control groups within studies naturally. We then utilise the bivariate random effects models to reanalyse two recent meta-analysis data sets.

Citing Articles

The Role of Double-Zero-Event Studies in Evidence Synthesis: Evaluating Robustness Using the Fragility Index.

Wang Z, Xing X, Mun E, Wu C, Lin L J Eval Clin Pract. 2025; 31(1):e14301.

PMID: 39780615 PMC: 11735258. DOI: 10.1111/jep.14301.


Choice of Link Functions for Generalized Linear Mixed Models in Meta-Analyses of Proportions.

Siegel L, Silva M, Lin L, Chen Y, Liu Y, Chu H Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2024; 6(1):13-23.

PMID: 39668973 PMC: 11632795. DOI: 10.1177/26320843231224808.


Variability of relative treatment effect among populations with low, moderate and high control group event rates: a meta-epidemiological study.

Murad M, Wang Z, Xiao M, Chu H, Lin L BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024; 24(1):263.

PMID: 39487397 PMC: 11529075. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02388-y.


Assessment of inverse publication bias in safety outcomes: an empirical analysis.

Xing X, Zhu J, Shi L, Xu C, Lin L BMC Med. 2024; 22(1):494.

PMID: 39456055 PMC: 11515227. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03707-2.


ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies.

Li L, Lin L, Cappelleri J, Chu H, Chen Y medRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39108504 PMC: 11302721. DOI: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24310959.


References
1.
DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View

2.
Harbord R, Deeks J, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne J . A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2006; 8(2):239-51. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxl004. View

3.
Shuster J, Jones L, Salmon D . Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Stat Med. 2007; 26(24):4375-85. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3060. View

4.
Chu H, Chen S, Louis T . Random Effects Models in a Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Two Diagnostic Tests Without a Gold Standard. J Am Stat Assoc. 2009; 104(486):512-523. PMC: 2701906. DOI: 10.1198/jasa.2009.0017. View

5.
Waksman J, Kollar C . Comments on 'Rebuttal to Carpenter et al.' Comments on 'Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death' by J. J. Shuster, L. S. Jones and D. A. Salmon, Statistics in.... Stat Med. 2009; 28(3):534-6. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3485. View