Meta-analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases
From MaRDI portal
Publication:5280181
Abstract: Random-effects meta-analyses are used to combine evidence of treatment effects from multiple studies. Since treatment effects may vary across trials due to differences in study characteristics, heterogeneity in treatment effects between studies must be accounted for to achieve valid inference. The standard model for random-effects meta-analysis assumes approximately normal effect estimates and a normal random-effects model. However, standard methods based on this model ignore the uncertainty in estimating the between-trial heterogeneity. In the special setting of only two studies and in the presence of heterogeneity we investigate here alternatives such as the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method (HKSJ), the modified Knapp-Hartung method (mKH, a variation of the HKSJ method) and Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses with priors covering plausible heterogeneity values. The properties of these methods are assessed by applying them to five examples from various rare diseases and by a simulation study. Whereas the standard method based on normal quantiles has poor coverage, the HKSJ and mKH generally lead to very long, and therefore inconclusive, confidence intervals. The Bayesian intervals on the whole show satisfying properties and offer a reasonable compromise between these two extremes.
Recommendations
- Meta-analysis of rare binary adverse event data
- Meta-analysis of rare events under the assumption of a homogeneous treatment effect
- On random-effects meta-analysis
- Comparison of random-effects meta-analysis models for the relative risk in the case of rare events: a simulation study
- Meta-Analysis for Rare Events As Binary Outcomes
Cites work
- Estimating common mean and heterogeneity variance in two study case meta-analysis
- On Constructing Confidence Intervals for a Standardized Mean Difference in Meta-analysis
- Robust meta‐analytic‐predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information
- Valid Inference in Random Effects Meta‐Analysis
Cited in
(16)- Bayesian heterogeneity in a meta–analysis with two studies and binary data
- Random‐effects meta‐analysis models for the odds ratio in the case of rare events under different data‐generating models: A simulation study
- Random-effects meta-analysis of phase I dose-finding studies using stochastic process priors
- Model averaging for robust extrapolation in evidence synthesis
- Exact inference on the random-effects model for meta-analyses with few studies
- How vague is vague? How informative is informative? Reference analysis for Bayesian meta-analysis
- On the exact null-distribution of a test for homogeneity of the risk ratio in meta-analysis of studies with rare events
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2042667 (Why is no real title available?)
- Sensitivity and identification quantification by a relative latent model complexity perturbation in Bayesian meta‐analysis
- Summarizing empirical information on between-study heterogeneity for Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis
- A straightforward meta-analysis approach for oncology phase I dose-finding studies
- Meta‐analysis of clinical trials with rare events
- Bounds for the weight of external data in shrinkage estimation
- Investigating the heterogeneity of ``study twins
- Quantification of empirical determinacy: The impact of likelihood weighting on posterior location and spread in Bayesian meta-analysis estimated with JAGS and INLA
- Subgroup identification in individual participant data meta-analysis using model-based recursive partitioning
This page was built for publication: Meta-analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q5280181)
