An empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate meta‐analyses for categorical outcomes

Thomas A Trikalinos · David C. Hoaglin · Christopher H. Schmid

58 citations0/0 files storedStatistics in Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Abstract

Treatment effects for multiple outcomes can be meta-analyzed separately or jointly, but no systematic empirical comparison of the two approaches exists. From the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, we identified 45 reviews, including 1473 trials and 258,675 patients, that contained two or three univariate meta-analyses of categorical outcomes for the same interventions that could also be analyzed jointly. Eligible were meta-analyses with at least seven trials reporting all outcomes for which the cross-classification tables were exactly recoverable (e.g., outcomes were mutually exclusive, or one was a subset of the other). This ensured known correlation structures. Outcomes in 40 reviews had an is-subset-of relationship, and those in 5 were mutually exclusive. We analyzed these data with univariate and multivariate models based on discrete and approximate likelihoods. Discrete models were fit in the Bayesian framework using slightly informative priors. The summary effects for each outcome were similar with univariate and multivariate meta-analyses (both using the approximate and discrete likelihoods); however, the multivariate model with the discrete likelihood gave smaller between-study variance estimates, and narrower predictive intervals for new studies. When differences in the summary treatment effects were examined, the multivariate models gave similar summary estimates but considerably longer (shorter) uncertainty intervals because of positive (negative) correlation between outcome treatment effects. It is unclear whether any of the examined reviews would change their overall conclusions based on multivariate versus univariate meta-analyses, because extra-analytical and context-specific considerations contribute to conclusions and, secondarily, because numerical differences were often modest.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.

References

2019The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis 2002Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression 2010Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data 2009Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta‐analyses 2011Multivariate meta‐analysis: Potential and promise 2011Multivariate Random-effects Meta-regression: Updates to Mvmeta 2007The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability 1993A bivariate approach to meta‐analysis

Cited by

2016Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of correlated effects: Impact of the prior distributions on the between-study correlation, borrowing of strength, and joint inferences 2019A Comparison of Fixed-Effects and Random-Effects Models for Multivariate Meta-Analysis Using an SEM Approach 2022Multivariate meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: characteristics and predictors of borrowing of strength from Cochrane reviews 2016Meta-Analysis of Effect Sizes Reported at Multiple Time Points Using General Linear Mixed Model

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.