Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analysis of sparse data based on exact likelihood (2404.06837v2)
Abstract: Meta-analysis is a powerful tool to synthesize findings from multiple studies. The normal-normal random-effects model is widely used to account for between-study heterogeneity. However, meta-analysis of sparse data, which may arise when the event rate is low for binary or count outcomes, poses a challenge to the normal-normal random-effects model in the accuracy and stability in inference since the normal approximation in the within-study model may not be good. To reduce bias arising from data sparsity, the generalized linear mixed model can be used by replacing the approximate normal within-study model with an exact model. Publication bias is one of the most serious threats in meta-analysis. Several quantitative sensitivity analysis methods for evaluating the potential impacts of selective publication are available for the normal-normal random-effects model. We propose a sensitivity analysis method by extending the likelihood-based sensitivity analysis with the t-statistic selection function of Copas to several generalized linear mixed-effects models. Through applications of our proposed method to several real-world meta-analysis and simulation studies, the proposed method was proven to outperform the likelihood-based sensitivity analysis based on the normal-normal model. The proposed method would give useful guidance to address publication bias in meta-analysis of sparse data.
- Meta-analysis of binary outcomes via generalized linear mixed models: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 70.
- Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society 151, 419–445.
- Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods 3, 133–153.
- A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine 14, 395–411.
- Some general points in estimating heterogeneity variance with the dersimonian–laird estimator. Biostatistics 3, 445–457.
- Copas, J. (1999). What works?: selectivity models and meta‐analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 162, 95–109.
- Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis. Biostatistics 1, 247–262.
- A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Statistical methods in medical research 10, 251–265.
- Copas, J. B. (2013). A likelihood-based sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics 62, 47–66.
- Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemporary clinical trials 28, 105–114.
- Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials 7, 177–188.
- Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. Journal of clinical epidemiology 45, 255–265.
- Dickersin, K. (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Jama 263, 1385–1389.
- Publication bias in clinical research. The Lancet 337, 867–872.
- Coordinate‐based activation likelihood estimation meta‐analysis of neuroimaging data: A random‐effects approach based on empirical estimates of spatial uncertainty. Human brain mapping 30, 2907–2926.
- Valid inference in random effects meta‐analysis. Biometrics 55, 732–737.
- A likelihood approach to meta‐analysis with random effects. Statistics in medicine 15, 619–629.
- Hartung, J. (1999). An alternative method for meta‐analysis. Biometrical Journal: Journal of Mathematical Methods in Biosciences 41, 901–916.
- On tests of the overall treatment effect in meta‐analysis with normally distributed responses. Statistics in medicine 20, 1771–1782.
- A refined method for the meta‐analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Statistics in medicine 20, 3875–3889.
- Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta‐analysis of diagnostic studies for a continuous biomarker. Statistics in Medicine 37, 327–342.
- Heckman, J. J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. In Annals of economic and social measurement, volume 5, number 4, pages 475–492. National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society 47, 153–161.
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine 21, 1539–1558.
- A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society 172, 137–159.
- Using clinical trial registries to inform copas selection model for publication bias in meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 12, 658–673.
- Adjusting for publication bias in meta‐analysis via inverse probability weighting using clinical trial registries. Biometrics 79, 2089–2102.
- The hartung-knapp-sidik-jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard dersimonian-laird method. BMC medical research methodology 14, 1–12.
- Approximations for standard errors of estimators of fixed and random effects in mixed linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79, 853–862.
- Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random‐effects meta‐analysis. Biometrical Journal: Journal of Mathematical Methods in Biosciences 48, 271–285.
- A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine 20, 641–654.
- Balancing type i error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of memory and language 94, 305–315.
- Anti-infective-treated central venous catheters: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Intensive care medicine 33, 2058–2068.
- Anti-infective-treated central venous catheters for total parenteral nutrition or chemotherapy: a systematic review. Journal of Hospital Infection 69, 114–123.
- Maximum likelihood estimation and em algorithm of copas-like selection model for publication bias correction. Biostatistics 18, 495–504.
- Analysis of binary data from a multicentre clinical trial. Biometrika 80, 127–139.
- A simple confidence interval for meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine 21, 3153–3159.
- On constructing confidence intervals for a standardized mean difference in meta-analysis. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation 32, 1191–1203.
- Random effects meta‐analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Statistics in medicine 29, 3046–3067.
- Tjur, T. (1998). Nonlinear regression, quasi likelihood, and overdispersion in generalized linear models. The American Statistician 52, 222–227.
- Maximum likelihood analysis for heteroscedastic one‐way random effects anova in interlaboratory studies. Biometrics 55, 129–136.
- Viechtbauer, W. (2007). Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine 26, 37–52.
- A general parametric approach to the meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials. Statistics in medicine 10, 1665–1677.
- Whitehead, A. N. (2020). Whitehead’s The Function of Reason. Lindhardt og Ringhof.
- A likelihood‐based sensitivity analysis for publication bias on the summary receiver operating characteristic in meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Statistics in Medicine 42, 781–798.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.