Exact Inference for Random Effects Meta-Analyses for Small, Sparse Data.

IF 0.9 Q4 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Stats Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-07 DOI:10.3390/stats8010005
Jessica Gronsbell, Zachary R McCaw, Timothy Regis, Lu Tian
{"title":"Exact Inference for Random Effects Meta-Analyses for Small, Sparse Data.","authors":"Jessica Gronsbell, Zachary R McCaw, Timothy Regis, Lu Tian","doi":"10.3390/stats8010005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meta-analysis aggregates information across related studies to provide more reliable statistical inference and has been a vital tool for assessing the safety and efficacy of many high-profile pharmaceutical products. A key challenge in conducting a meta-analysis is that the number of related studies is typically small. Applying classical methods that are asymptotic in the number of studies can compromise the validity of inference, particularly when heterogeneity across studies is present. Moreover, serious adverse events are often rare and can result in one or more studies with no events in at least one study arm. Practitioners remove studies in which no events have occurred in one or both arms or apply arbitrary continuity corrections (e.g., adding one event to arms with zero events) to stabilize or define effect estimates in such settings, which can further invalidate subsequent inference. To address these significant practical issues, we introduce an exact inference method for random effects meta-analysis of a treatment effect in the two-sample setting with rare events, which we coin \"XRRmeta\". In contrast to existing methods, XRRmeta provides valid inference for meta-analysis in the presence of between-study heterogeneity and when the event rates, number of studies, and/or the within-study sample sizes are small. Extensive numerical studies indicate that XRRmeta does not yield overly conservative inference. We apply our proposed method to two real-data examples using our open-source R package.</p>","PeriodicalId":93142,"journal":{"name":"Stats","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12456449/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stats","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/stats8010005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Meta-analysis aggregates information across related studies to provide more reliable statistical inference and has been a vital tool for assessing the safety and efficacy of many high-profile pharmaceutical products. A key challenge in conducting a meta-analysis is that the number of related studies is typically small. Applying classical methods that are asymptotic in the number of studies can compromise the validity of inference, particularly when heterogeneity across studies is present. Moreover, serious adverse events are often rare and can result in one or more studies with no events in at least one study arm. Practitioners remove studies in which no events have occurred in one or both arms or apply arbitrary continuity corrections (e.g., adding one event to arms with zero events) to stabilize or define effect estimates in such settings, which can further invalidate subsequent inference. To address these significant practical issues, we introduce an exact inference method for random effects meta-analysis of a treatment effect in the two-sample setting with rare events, which we coin "XRRmeta". In contrast to existing methods, XRRmeta provides valid inference for meta-analysis in the presence of between-study heterogeneity and when the event rates, number of studies, and/or the within-study sample sizes are small. Extensive numerical studies indicate that XRRmeta does not yield overly conservative inference. We apply our proposed method to two real-data examples using our open-source R package.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

小型稀疏数据随机效应荟萃分析的精确推断。
荟萃分析汇集了相关研究的信息,以提供更可靠的统计推断,并已成为评估许多知名药品安全性和有效性的重要工具。进行荟萃分析的一个关键挑战是相关研究的数量通常很少。应用研究数量渐近的经典方法可能会损害推理的有效性,特别是当研究存在异质性时。此外,严重的不良事件通常是罕见的,并可能导致一个或多个研究中至少一个研究组没有发生不良事件。从业者删除了在一个或两个实验组中没有发生事件的研究,或者应用任意的连续性修正(例如,在零事件的实验组中添加一个事件)来稳定或定义这种设置中的效果估计,这可能进一步使后续推断无效。为了解决这些重要的实际问题,我们引入了一种精确推理方法,用于随机效应荟萃分析在双样本设置中罕见事件的治疗效果,我们称之为“XRRmeta”。与现有方法相比,在存在研究间异质性以及事件发生率、研究数量和/或研究内样本量较小的情况下,XRRmeta为meta分析提供了有效的推断。大量的数值研究表明,XRRmeta不会产生过于保守的推断。我们使用我们的开源R包将我们提出的方法应用到两个实际数据示例中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信