Meta-Analysis

Summary

Objectives: This contribution provides a unifying concept for meta-analysis integrating the handling of unobserved heterogeneity, study covariates, publication bias and study quality. It is important to consider these issues simultaneously to avoid the occurrence of artifacts, and a method for doing so is suggested here.

Methods: The approach is based upon the meta-likelihood in combination with a general linear nonparametric mixed model, which lays the ground for all inferential conclusions suggested here.

Results: The concept is illustrated at hand of a meta-analysis investigating the relationship of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer. The phenomenon of interest has been investigated in many studies for a considerable time and different results were reported. In 1992 a meta-analysis by Sillero-Arenas et al. [1] concluded a small, but significant overall effect of 1.06 on the relative risk scale. Using the meta-likelihood approach it is demonstrated here that this meta-analysis is due to considerable unobserved heterogeneity. Furthermore, it is shown that new methods are available to model this heterogeneity successfully. It is argued further to include available study covariates to explain this heterogeneity in the meta-analysis at hand.

Conclusions: The topic of HRT and breast cancer has again very recently become an issue of public debate, when results of a large trial investigating the health effects of hormone replacement therapy were published indicating an increased risk for breast cancer (risk ratio of 1.26). Using an adequate regression model in the previously published meta-analysis an adjusted estimate of effect of 1.14 can be given which is considerably higher than the one published in the meta-analysis of Sillero-Arenas et al. [1]. In summary, it is hoped that the method suggested here contributes further to a good meta-analytic practice in public health and clinical disciplines.

Keywords

Evidence-based medicine - C.A.MAN - meta-analysis - meta-regression - meta-likelihood - nonparametric maximum meta-likelihood - publication bias - unobserved heterogeneity

• References

• 1 Sillero-Arenas M. et al. Menopausal Hormone Replacement Thearapy and Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 286-94.
• 2 Rossouw JE. et al. (Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators). Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. Principal results from the women’s health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288: 321-33.
• 3 Cooper H, Hedges LV. editors The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russel Sage Foundation; 1994
• 4 Sutton AJ. et al. Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. Chichester: Wiley; 2000
• 5 Altman D, Chalmers I. editors. Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1995
• 6 Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994
• 7 Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta- Analysis. London: Academic Press; 1985
• 8 Glass GV. et al. Meta-analysis in Social Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1981
• 9 Light RJ, Pillemar DB. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1984
• 10 Stangl DK, Berry DA. editors Meta-analysis in Medicine and Health Policy. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000
• 11 Böhning D. Computer-Assisted Analysis of Mixtures and Applications. Meta-Analysis. Disease Mapping. and Others. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2000
• 12 McLachlan G, Krishnan T. The EM Algorithm and Extensions. New York: Wiley; 1997
• 13 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-88.
• 14 Minitab Inc. Minitab 13.3. Minitab Inc.: State College; 2000
• 15 Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operator characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088-101.
• 16 Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psycol Bull 1979; 86: 638-41.
• 17 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455-63.
• 18 Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2001; 20: 641-54.
• 19 Greenland S. Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 290-6.
• 20 Berard A, Bravo G. Combining studies using effect sizes and quality scores: application to bone loss in postmenopausal women. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 801-7.