An improved method for bivariate meta‐analysis when within‐study correlations are unknown

An improved method for bivariate meta‐analysis when within‐study correlations are unknown Multivariate meta‐analysis, which jointly analyzes multiple and possibly correlated outcomes in a single analysis, is becoming increasingly popular in recent years. An attractive feature of the multivariate meta‐analysis is its ability to account for the dependence between multiple estimates from the same study. However, standard inference procedures for multivariate meta‐analysis require the knowledge of within‐study correlations, which are usually unavailable. This limits standard inference approaches in practice. Riley et al proposed a working model and an overall synthesis correlation parameter to account for the marginal correlation between outcomes, where the only data needed are those required for a separate univariate random‐effects meta‐analysis. As within‐study correlations are not required, the Riley method is applicable to a wide variety of evidence synthesis situations. However, the standard variance estimator of the Riley method is not entirely correct under many important settings. As a consequence, the coverage of a function of pooled estimates may not reach the nominal level even when the number of studies in the multivariate meta‐analysis is large. In this paper, we improve the Riley method by proposing a robust variance estimator, which is asymptotically correct even when the model is misspecified (ie, when the likelihood function is incorrect). Simulation studies of a bivariate meta‐analysis, in a variety of settings, show a function of pooled estimates has improved performance when using the proposed robust variance estimator. In terms of individual pooled estimates themselves, the standard variance estimator and robust variance estimator give similar results to the original method, with appropriate coverage. The proposed robust variance estimator performs well when the number of studies is relatively large. Therefore, we recommend the use of the robust method for meta‐analyses with a relatively large number of studies (eg, m≥50). When the sample size is relatively small, we recommend the use of the robust method under the working independence assumption. We illustrate the proposed method through 2 meta‐analyses. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Research Synthesis Methods Wiley

An improved method for bivariate meta‐analysis when within‐study correlations are unknown

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/an-improved-method-for-bivariate-meta-analysis-when-within-study-8m1mzS5oTI
Publisher
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN
1759-2879
eISSN
1759-2887
D.O.I.
10.1002/jrsm.1274
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Multivariate meta‐analysis, which jointly analyzes multiple and possibly correlated outcomes in a single analysis, is becoming increasingly popular in recent years. An attractive feature of the multivariate meta‐analysis is its ability to account for the dependence between multiple estimates from the same study. However, standard inference procedures for multivariate meta‐analysis require the knowledge of within‐study correlations, which are usually unavailable. This limits standard inference approaches in practice. Riley et al proposed a working model and an overall synthesis correlation parameter to account for the marginal correlation between outcomes, where the only data needed are those required for a separate univariate random‐effects meta‐analysis. As within‐study correlations are not required, the Riley method is applicable to a wide variety of evidence synthesis situations. However, the standard variance estimator of the Riley method is not entirely correct under many important settings. As a consequence, the coverage of a function of pooled estimates may not reach the nominal level even when the number of studies in the multivariate meta‐analysis is large. In this paper, we improve the Riley method by proposing a robust variance estimator, which is asymptotically correct even when the model is misspecified (ie, when the likelihood function is incorrect). Simulation studies of a bivariate meta‐analysis, in a variety of settings, show a function of pooled estimates has improved performance when using the proposed robust variance estimator. In terms of individual pooled estimates themselves, the standard variance estimator and robust variance estimator give similar results to the original method, with appropriate coverage. The proposed robust variance estimator performs well when the number of studies is relatively large. Therefore, we recommend the use of the robust method for meta‐analyses with a relatively large number of studies (eg, m≥50). When the sample size is relatively small, we recommend the use of the robust method under the working independence assumption. We illustrate the proposed method through 2 meta‐analyses.

Journal

Research Synthesis MethodsWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

Keywords: ; ; ;

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial