» Articles » PMID: 23734068

Meta-Analysis of Rare Binary Adverse Event Data

Overview
Journal J Am Stat Assoc
Specialty Public Health
Date 2013 Jun 5
PMID 23734068
Citations 49
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We examine the use of fixed-effects and random-effects moment-based meta-analytic methods for analysis of binary adverse event data. Special attention is paid to the case of rare adverse events which are commonly encountered in routine practice. We study estimation of model parameters and between-study heterogeneity. In addition, we examine traditional approaches to hypothesis testing of the average treatment effect and detection of the heterogeneity of treatment effect across studies. We derive three new methods, simple (unweighted) average treatment effect estimator, a new heterogeneity estimator, and a parametric bootstrapping test for heterogeneity. We then study the statistical properties of both the traditional and new methods via simulation. We find that in general, moment-based estimators of combined treatment effects and heterogeneity are biased and the degree of bias is proportional to the rarity of the event under study. The new methods eliminate much, but not all of this bias. The various estimators and hypothesis testing methods are then compared and contrasted using an example dataset on treatment of stable coronary artery disease.

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.


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.


Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine therapies for the treatment of mild/moderate acute COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Li A, Guyatt G, Chu D, Thabane L, Busse J, Sadeghirad B BMJ Open. 2024; 14(11):e088959.

PMID: 39515857 PMC: 11552603. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088959.


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.


Integrating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions to assess the effect of rare events: a Bayesian re-analysis of two meta-analyses.

Zhou Y, Yao M, Mei F, Ma Y, Huan J, Zou K BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024; 24(1):219.

PMID: 39333867 PMC: 11430109. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02347-7.


References
1.
Higgins J, Thompson S . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186. View

2.
Shuster J . Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2009; 29(12):1259-65. PMC: 3697007. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3607. View

3.
DerSimonian R, Kacker R . Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006; 28(2):105-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004. View

4.
Haldane J . The estimation and significance of the logarithm of a ratio of frequencies. Ann Hum Genet. 1956; 20(4):309-11. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1955.tb01285.x. View

5.
Rihal C, Raco D, Gersh B, Yusuf S . Indications for coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in chronic stable angina: review of the evidence and methodological considerations. Circulation. 2003; 108(20):2439-45. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000094405.21583.7C. View