从多个研究中合并2x2列联表检验效应大小的同质性:方法的比较

IF 0.1 Q4 MATHEMATICS
O. Almalik, E. Heuvel
{"title":"从多个研究中合并2x2列联表检验效应大小的同质性:方法的比较","authors":"O. Almalik, E. Heuvel","doi":"10.1080/25742558.2018.1478698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Meta-analysis is a statistical methodology that combines the outcomes of several independent studies. Either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model is used to combine the results of the independent studies. The choice depends on whether the outcomes can be considered homogeneous or not. Several methods have been developed to test the homogeneity of effect sizes. Although many of them have been compared already, they have not been studied in more realistic practical settings where individuals all have their own risk of an event and a complete overview is lacking. In this article, we investigate the performance of 10 statistical methods to test homogeneity of a binary exposure on a binary clinical outcome, using an extensive simulation study and a real life meta-analysis. We evaluated the Type I error and the statistical power. The fixed-effects regression model for treatment and study interaction was found to be a slightly liberal test, while the Q-statistic and the Bliss statistic can be considered conservative tests. The random-effects regression model, the Peto statistic and the I2 perform rather poorly compared to the other methods. All chi-square tests that are based on the calculation of a specific odds ratio and the fixed-effects logistic regression analysis perform best. Among these chi-square tests, we recommend the Breslow–Day test, but only for convenience purposes, since it is available in most statistical software packages and the other tests are not.","PeriodicalId":92618,"journal":{"name":"Cogent mathematics & statistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25742558.2018.1478698","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing homogeneity of effect sizes in pooling 2x2 contingency tables from multiple studies: a comparison of methods\",\"authors\":\"O. Almalik, E. Heuvel\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/25742558.2018.1478698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Meta-analysis is a statistical methodology that combines the outcomes of several independent studies. Either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model is used to combine the results of the independent studies. The choice depends on whether the outcomes can be considered homogeneous or not. Several methods have been developed to test the homogeneity of effect sizes. Although many of them have been compared already, they have not been studied in more realistic practical settings where individuals all have their own risk of an event and a complete overview is lacking. In this article, we investigate the performance of 10 statistical methods to test homogeneity of a binary exposure on a binary clinical outcome, using an extensive simulation study and a real life meta-analysis. We evaluated the Type I error and the statistical power. The fixed-effects regression model for treatment and study interaction was found to be a slightly liberal test, while the Q-statistic and the Bliss statistic can be considered conservative tests. The random-effects regression model, the Peto statistic and the I2 perform rather poorly compared to the other methods. All chi-square tests that are based on the calculation of a specific odds ratio and the fixed-effects logistic regression analysis perform best. Among these chi-square tests, we recommend the Breslow–Day test, but only for convenience purposes, since it is available in most statistical software packages and the other tests are not.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cogent mathematics & statistics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25742558.2018.1478698\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cogent mathematics & statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/25742558.2018.1478698\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogent mathematics & statistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25742558.2018.1478698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

摘要荟萃分析是一种统计方法,结合了几个独立研究的结果。使用固定效应或随机效应模型来组合独立研究的结果。选择取决于结果是否可以被认为是同质的。已经开发了几种方法来测试效应大小的均匀性。尽管其中许多已经进行了比较,但还没有在更现实的实际环境中进行研究,在这些环境中,每个人都有自己的事件风险,而且缺乏完整的概述。在这篇文章中,我们使用广泛的模拟研究和现实生活中的荟萃分析,研究了10种统计方法在测试二元暴露对二元临床结果的同质性方面的性能。我们评估了I型误差和统计能力。治疗和研究相互作用的固定效应回归模型被发现是一个稍微自由的检验,而Q统计量和Bliss统计量可以被认为是保守的检验。与其他方法相比,随机效应回归模型、Peto统计量和I2表现相当差。所有基于特定比值比计算和固定效应逻辑回归分析的卡方检验表现最好。在这些卡方测试中,我们建议使用Breslow-Day测试,但仅出于方便的目的,因为它在大多数统计软件包中都可用,而其他测试则不可用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing homogeneity of effect sizes in pooling 2x2 contingency tables from multiple studies: a comparison of methods
Abstract Meta-analysis is a statistical methodology that combines the outcomes of several independent studies. Either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model is used to combine the results of the independent studies. The choice depends on whether the outcomes can be considered homogeneous or not. Several methods have been developed to test the homogeneity of effect sizes. Although many of them have been compared already, they have not been studied in more realistic practical settings where individuals all have their own risk of an event and a complete overview is lacking. In this article, we investigate the performance of 10 statistical methods to test homogeneity of a binary exposure on a binary clinical outcome, using an extensive simulation study and a real life meta-analysis. We evaluated the Type I error and the statistical power. The fixed-effects regression model for treatment and study interaction was found to be a slightly liberal test, while the Q-statistic and the Bliss statistic can be considered conservative tests. The random-effects regression model, the Peto statistic and the I2 perform rather poorly compared to the other methods. All chi-square tests that are based on the calculation of a specific odds ratio and the fixed-effects logistic regression analysis perform best. Among these chi-square tests, we recommend the Breslow–Day test, but only for convenience purposes, since it is available in most statistical software packages and the other tests are not.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信