Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias

被引:125
作者
Henmi, Masayuki [1 ]
Copas, John B. [2 ]
机构
[1] Inst Stat Math, Tokyo 1908562, Japan
[2] Univ Warwick, Dept Stat, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
meta-analysis; random effects models; publication bias; DerSimonian-Laird confidence interval; FILL METHOD; HETEROGENEITY; TRIM;
D O I
10.1002/sim.4029
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
The DerSimonian-Laird confidence interval for the average treatment effect in meta-analysis is widely used in practice when there is heterogeneity between studies. However, it is well known that its coverage probability (the probability that the interval actually includes the true value) can be substantially below the target level of 95 per cent. It can also be very sensitive to publication bias. In this paper, we propose a new confidence interval that has better coverage than the DerSimonian-Laird method, and that is less sensitive to publication bias. The key idea is to note that fixed effects estimates are less sensitive to such biases than random effects estimates, since they put relatively more weight on the larger studies and relatively less weight on the smaller studies. Whereas the DerSimonian-Laird interval is centred on a random effects estimate, we centre our confidence interval on a fixed effects estimate, but allow for heterogeneity by including an assessment of the extra uncertainty induced by the random effects setting. Properties of the resulting confidence interval are studied by simulation and compared with other random effects confidence intervals that have been proposed in the literature. An example is briefly discussed. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:2969 / 2983
页数:15
相关论文
共 21 条
[11]   A re-evaluation of the 'quantile approximation method' for random effects meta-analysis [J].
Jackson, Dan ;
Bowden, Jack .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (02) :338-348
[12]  
Lee A, 2004, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003281.PUB2
[13]   Publication bias affected the estimate of postoperative nausea in an acupoint stimulation systematic review [J].
Lee, Anna ;
Copas, John B. ;
Henmi, Masayuki ;
Gin, Tony ;
Chung, Raymond C. K. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (09) :980-983
[14]   A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis [J].
Macaskill, P ;
Walter, SD ;
Irwig, L .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (04) :641-654
[15]  
Normand SLT, 1999, STAT MED, V18, P321, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990215)18:3<321::AID-SIM28>3.3.CO
[16]  
2-G
[17]   Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity [J].
Peters, Jaime L. ;
Sutton, Alex J. ;
Jones, David R. ;
Abrams, Keith R. ;
Rushton, Lesley .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2007, 26 (25) :4544-4562
[18]   Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative [J].
Poole, C ;
Greenland, S .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1999, 150 (05) :469-475
[19]  
Rothstein HR, 2005, PUBLICATION BIAS IN META-ANALYSIS: PREVENTION, ASSESSMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS, P1, DOI 10.1002/0470870168
[20]   A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis [J].
Sidik, K ;
Jonkman, JN .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (21) :3153-3159