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
[11]   Statistically significant papers in psychiatry were cited more often than others [J].
Nieminen, Pentti ;
Rucker, Gerta ;
Miettunen, Jouko ;
Carpenter, James ;
Schumacher, Martin .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 60 (09) :939-946
[12]  
Pournelle G. H., 1953, Journal of Mammalogy, V34, P133, DOI 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1421:SDEOLC]2.0.CO
[13]  
2
[14]  
Rothstein HR, 2005, PUBLICATION BIAS IN META-ANALYSIS: PREVENTION, ASSESSMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS, P1, DOI 10.1002/0470870168
[15]   Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes [J].
Rucker, Gerta ;
Schwarzer, Guido ;
Carpenter, James .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2008, 27 (05) :746-763
[16]  
SCHWARZER G, 2006, META R PACKAGE VERSI
[17]  
Schwarzer G., 2007, R. News, V7, P40