Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Statistical inference on mixed one- and two-armed studies in meta-analysis without study-specific variance

Statistical inference on mixed one- and two-armed studies in meta-analysis without study-specific... In some meta-analytic data constellations, only the quantity of interest and sample size are available from the published reports. In addition, for some individual studies, this partial information is available for only one of two treatment groups. These are typically excluded from the meta-analysis, whereas in fact, it would be preferable to include such studies. This paper proposes an approach for estimating the parameter of interest when study-specific variance is not included in the study information and potentially only one arm information is presented. The approach we propose allows the full set of individual studies to be analyzed. The joint likelihoods included missing case modeling is used to estimate the mean difference and variance using a fixed effect model. In simulations, we evaluate the performance of the estimators in terms of bias and standard deviation, and compare the results with those from an existing method but using only studies in which information is available in both treatment arms. The coverage probability is also computed to investigate the efficiency of the confidence intervals. Our estimators derived under the homogeneity model show better performance than the existing method when estimating the mean difference and related variance. They are also useful for estimating the mean difference parameter under several heterogeneity scenarios: baseline heterogeneity but no effect heterogeneity, as well as under baseline heterogeneity jointly with effect heterogeneity across studies. We apply our method to a meta-analysis of clinical study data and demonstrate its practicality. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biostatistics & Epidemiology Taylor & Francis

Statistical inference on mixed one- and two-armed studies in meta-analysis without study-specific variance

Sangnawakij, Patarawan; Böhning, Dankmar
Biostatistics & Epidemiology , Volume OnlineFirst: 21 – May 5, 2022
Download PDF

Statistical inference on mixed one- and two-armed studies in meta-analysis without study-specific variance

Abstract

In some meta-analytic data constellations, only the quantity of interest and sample size are available from the published reports. In addition, for some individual studies, this partial information is available for only one of two treatment groups. These are typically excluded from the meta-analysis, whereas in fact, it would be preferable to include such studies. This paper proposes an approach for estimating the parameter of interest when study-specific variance is not included in the...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/statistical-inference-on-mixed-one-and-two-armed-studies-in-meta-4d740aCgVF
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2022 International Biometric Society – Chinese Region
ISSN
2470-9379
eISSN
2470-9360
DOI
10.1080/24709360.2022.2065627
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In some meta-analytic data constellations, only the quantity of interest and sample size are available from the published reports. In addition, for some individual studies, this partial information is available for only one of two treatment groups. These are typically excluded from the meta-analysis, whereas in fact, it would be preferable to include such studies. This paper proposes an approach for estimating the parameter of interest when study-specific variance is not included in the study information and potentially only one arm information is presented. The approach we propose allows the full set of individual studies to be analyzed. The joint likelihoods included missing case modeling is used to estimate the mean difference and variance using a fixed effect model. In simulations, we evaluate the performance of the estimators in terms of bias and standard deviation, and compare the results with those from an existing method but using only studies in which information is available in both treatment arms. The coverage probability is also computed to investigate the efficiency of the confidence intervals. Our estimators derived under the homogeneity model show better performance than the existing method when estimating the mean difference and related variance. They are also useful for estimating the mean difference parameter under several heterogeneity scenarios: baseline heterogeneity but no effect heterogeneity, as well as under baseline heterogeneity jointly with effect heterogeneity across studies. We apply our method to a meta-analysis of clinical study data and demonstrate its practicality.

Journal

Biostatistics & Epidemiology – Taylor & Francis

Published: May 5, 2022

Keywords: Mixed information; mean difference; meta-analysis; missing case modeling; missing variance

References

  • A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
  • Estimating the bias in meta analysis estimates for continuous data with non-random missing study variance
  • A systematic review of methods for handling missing variance data in meta-analyses of interventions in type 2 diabetes Mellitus
  • Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample
  • The effects of imputing the missing standard deviations on the standard error of meta analysis estimates
  • A note on dealing with missing standard errors in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures in WinBUGS
  • Meta-analysis with missing study-level sample variance data
  • A systematic review identifies a lack of standardization in methods for handling missing variance data
  • Imputing variance estimates do not alter the conclusions of a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes: a case study of changes in renal function after living kidney donation
  • Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention-to-treat principle and excluding patients from analysis
  • Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis
  • Estimation of the common mean from heterogeneous normal observations with unknown variances
  • Statistical methodology for estimating the mean difference in a meta-analysis without study-specific variance information
  • Meta-analysis without study-specific variance information: heterogeneity case
  • Does thoracoscopy have advantages over open surgery for asymptomatic congenital lung malformations? an analysis of 1626 resections
  • The increasing incidence of foetal echogenic congenital lung malformations: an observational study
  • Exact inference on meta-analysis with generalized fixed-effects and random-effects models