Simpson's paradox visualized:: The example of the Rosiglitazone meta-analysis

被引:102
作者
Ruecker, Gerta [1 ]
Schumacher, Martin [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Freiburg, Inst Med Biometry & Med Informat, Freiburg, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.1186/1471-2288-8-34
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Simpson's paradox is sometimes referred to in the areas of epidemiology and clinical research. It can also be found in meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. However, though readers are able to recalculate examples from hypothetical as well as real data, they may have problems to easily figure where it emerges from. Method: First, two kinds of plots are proposed to illustrate the phenomenon graphically, a scatter plot and a line graph. Subsequently, these can be overlaid, resulting in a overlay plot. The plots are applied to the recent large meta-analysis of adverse effects of rosiglitazone on myocardial infarction and to an example from the literature. A large set of meta-analyses is screened for further examples. Results: As noted earlier by others, occurrence of Simpson's paradox in the meta-analytic setting, if present, is associated with imbalance of treatment arm size. This is well illustrated by the proposed plots. The rosiglitazone meta-analysis shows an effect reversion if all trials are pooled. In a sample of 157 meta-analyses, nine showed an effect reversion after pooling, though non-significant in all cases. Conclusion: The plots give insight on how the imbalance of trial arm size works as a confounder, thus producing Simpson's paradox. Readers can see why meta-analytic methods must be used and what is wrong with simple pooling.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Meta-analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat [J].
Altman D.G. ;
Deeks J.J. .
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2 (1) :1-5
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2006, R LANG ENV STAT COMP
[3]   Ignoring a covariate: An example of Simpson's paradox [J].
Appleton, DR ;
French, JM ;
Vanderpump, MPJ .
AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 1996, 50 (04) :340-341
[4]   Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies [J].
Baker, SG ;
Kramer, BS .
JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH & GENDER-BASED MEDICINE, 2001, 10 (09) :867-872
[5]   The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: If A bests B and B bests Cinseparate trials, is A better than C? [J].
Baker S.G. ;
Kramer B.S. .
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2 (1) :1-5
[6]  
Baker Stuart G, 2003, BMC Med Res Methodol, V3, P10
[7]  
Bracken MB, 2007, NEW ENGL J MED, V357, P937
[8]   Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events [J].
Bradburn, Michael J. ;
Deeks, Jonathan J. ;
Berlin, Jesse A. ;
Localio, A. Russell .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2007, 26 (01) :53-77
[9]   Comments on 'Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies:: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death' [J].
Carpenter, Annes ;
Ruecker, Gerta ;
Schwarzer, Guido .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2008, 27 (19) :3910-3912
[10]  
CARPENTER JR, 2007, EMPIRICAL E IN PRESS