Empirical evaluation showed that the Copas selection model provided a useful summary in 80% of meta-analyses

被引:37
作者
Carpenter, James R. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Schwarzer, Guido [3 ]
Ruecker, Gerta [3 ]
Kuenstler, Rita
机构
[1] Univ Freiburg, Inst Med Biometry & Med Informat, Univ Med Ctr, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany
[2] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Med Stat Unit, London WC1, England
[3] Univ Med Ctr, German Cochrane Ctr, Freiburg, Germany
[4] Univ Freiburg, Freiburg Ctr Data Anal & Modeling, Freiburg, Germany
关键词
Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Publication bias; Small study effects; Copas selection model; Empirical evaluation; PUBLICATION BIAS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.002
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
Objective: Although using meta-analysis to combine evidence from a number of studies should reduce both bias and uncertainty, it is sometimes not the case, because published studies represent a biased selection of the evidence. Copas proposed a selection model to assess the sensitivity of meta-analysis conclusions to possible selection bias. However. this relatively complex model awaits both reliable software and in empirical evaluation. This article reports work addressing both these issues. Study Design and Setting: We took 157 meta-analyses with binary outcomes, analyzed each one using the Copas selection model, and evaluated each analysis using a prespecified protocol. The evaluation aimed to assess the usefulness of file Copas selection model to a typical Cochrane reviewer. Results: In approximately 80% of meta-analyses, the overall interpretation of the Copas selection model was clear, with better results among the 22 with evidence of selection bias. However, as with the "Trim and Fill" method, allowing for selection bias can result in smaller standard errors for the treatment estimate. Conclusion: When a reliable test for selection bias is significant. we recommend systematic reviewers to try the Copas selection model, although the results should be interpreted cautiously. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:624 / 631
页数:8
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
CARPENTER J, 2008, COPAS R PACKAGE VERS
[2]   What works?: selectivity models and meta-analysis [J].
Copas, J .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 1999, 162 :95-109
[3]  
Copas J, 2000, Biostatistics, V1, P247, DOI 10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.247
[4]   A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews [J].
Copas, JB ;
Shi, JQ .
STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2001, 10 (04) :251-265
[5]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[6]   A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis [J].
Duval, S ;
Tweedie, R .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 95 (449) :89-98
[7]   PUBLICATION BIAS IN CLINICAL RESEARCH [J].
EASTERBROOK, PJ ;
BERLIN, JA ;
GOPALAN, R ;
MATTHEWS, DR .
LANCET, 1991, 337 (8746) :867-872
[8]   EQUIVALENCE OF WEIGHTED KAPPA AND INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AS MEASURES OF RELIABILITY [J].
FLEISS, JL ;
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1973, 33 (03) :613-619
[9]  
Juni P, 2006, COMMUNICATION
[10]  
Little R.J.A., 2002, Statistical analysis with missing data, DOI [10.1002/9781119013563, DOI 10.1002/9781119013563]