Applications of simple and accessible methods for meta-analysis involving rare events: A simulation study
Open Access
- 17 June 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Statistical Methods in Medical Research
- Vol. 30 (7), 1589-1608
- https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802211022385
Abstract
Meta-analysis of clinical trials targeting rare events face particular challenges when the data lack adequate number of events and are susceptible to high levels of heterogeneity. The standard meta-analysis methods (DerSimonian Laird (DL) and Mantel–Haenszel (MH)) often lead to serious distortions because of such data sparsity. Applications of the methods suited to specific incidence and heterogeneity characteristics are lacking, thus we compared nine available methods in a simulation study. We generated 360 meta-analysis scenarios where each considered different incidences, sample sizes, between-study variance (heterogeneity) and treatment allocation. We include globally recommended methods such as inverse-variance fixed/random-effect (IV-FE/RE), classical-MH, MH-FE, MH-DL, Peto, Peto-DL and the two extensions for MH bootstrapped-DL (bDL) and Peto-bDL. Performance was assessed on mean bias, mean error, coverage and power. In the absence of heterogeneity, the coverage and power when combined revealed small differences in meta-analysis involving rare and very rare events. The Peto-bDL method performed best, but only in smaller sample sizes involving rare events. For medium-to-larger sample sizes, MH-bDL was preferred. For meta-analysis involving very rare events, Peto-bDL was the best performing method which was sustained across all sample sizes. However, in meta-analysis with 20% or more heterogeneity, the coverage and power were insufficient. Performance based on mean bias and mean error was almost identical across methods. To conclude, in meta-analysis of rare binary outcomes, our results suggest that Peto-bDL is better in both rare and very rare event settings in meta-analysis with limited sample sizes. However, when heterogeneity is large, the coverage and power to detect rare events are insufficient. Whilst this study shows that some of the less studied methods appear to have good properties under sparse data scenarios, further work is needed to assess them against the more complex distributional-based methods to understand their overall performances.This publication has 54 references indexed in Scilit:
- Meta-Analysis of Rare Binary Adverse Event DataJournal of the American Statistical Association, 2012
- Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended eventBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2012
- Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2012
- Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysisBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2011
- Meta-analysis for rare eventsStatistics in Medicine, 2010
- Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta‐analysis with zero cellsStatistics in Medicine, 2008
- Exact and efficient inference procedure for meta-analysis and its application to the analysis of independent 2 x 2 tables with all available data but without artificial continuity correctionBiostatistics, 2008
- What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse dataStatistics in Medicine, 2004
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trialsProgress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 1985