Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta‐analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes

Jonathan James Deeks

660 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 in Epidemiology

Abstract

Meta-analysis of binary data involves the computation of a weighted average of summary statistics calculated for each trial. The selection of the appropriate summary statistic is a subject of debate due to conflicts in the relative importance of mathematical properties and the ability to intuitively interpret results. This paper explores the process of identifying a summary statistic most likely to be consistent across trials when there is variation in control group event rates. Four summary statistics are considered: odds ratios (OR); risk differences (RD) and risk ratios of beneficial (RR(B)); and harmful outcomes (RR(H)). Each summary statistic corresponds to a different pattern of predicted absolute benefit of treatment with variation in baseline risk, the greatest difference in patterns of prediction being between RR(B) and RR(H). Selection of a summary statistic solely based on identification of the best-fitting model by comparing tests of heterogeneity is problematic, principally due to low numbers of trials. It is proposed that choice of a summary statistic should be guided by both empirical evidence and clinically informed debate as to which model is likely to be closest to the expected pattern of treatment benefit across baseline risks. Empirical investigations comparing the four summary statistics on a sample of 551 systematic reviews provide evidence that the RR and OR models are on average more consistent than RD, there being no difference on average between RR and OR. From a second sample of 114 meta-analyses evidence indicates that for interventions aimed at preventing an undesirable event, greatest absolute benefits are observed in trials with the highest baseline event rates, corresponding to the model of constant RR(H). The appropriate selection for a particular meta-analysis may depend on understanding reasons for variation in control group event rates; in some situations uncertainty about the choice of summary statistic will remain.

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 — 660 citations exist upstream.

References

2002Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis 2001Statistical Methods for Examining Heterogeneity and Combining Results from Several Studies in Meta‐Analysis 2002Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta-analysis in Context.

Cited by

2007Recent developments in meta‐analysis 2013Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions 2011NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials 2014How to Use a Subgroup Analysis 2006Pharmacotherapy for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)2007Arcsine test for publication bias in meta‐analyses with binary outcomes 2016GetReal in network meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology 2008Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Multiple Treatment Comparisons: An Introduction to Mixed Treatment Comparisons

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.