Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Inc
E-ISSN: 1521-4036|57|4|649-660
ISSN: 0323-3847
Source: BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, Vol.57, Iss.4, 2015-07, pp. : 649-660
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
When performing single arm meta‐analyses of rare events in small populations, if the outcome of interest is incidence, it is not uncommon to have at least one study with zero events, especially in the presence of competing risks. In this paper, we address the problem of how to include studies with zero events in inverse variance meta‐analyses when individual patient data are not available, going beyond the naïve approach of not including the study or the use of a continuity correction. The proposed solution is the arcsine transformation of the crude cumulative incidence as its approximate variance, which is inversely proportional to the sample size, can be calculated also for studies with a zero estimate. As an alternative, generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) can be used. Simulations were performed to compare the results from inverse variance method meta‐analyses of the arcsine transformed cumulative incidence to those obtained from meta‐analyses of the cumulative incidence itself and of the logit transformation of the cumulative incidence. The comparisons have been carried out for different scenarios of heterogeneity, incidence, and censoring and for competing and not competing risks. The arcsine transformation showed the smallest bias and the highest coverage among models assuming within study normality. At the same time, the GLMM model had the best performance at very low incidences. The proposed method was applied to the clinical context that motivated this work, i.e. a meta‐analysis of 5‐year crude cumulative incidence of central nervous system recurrences in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Related content
Meta‐analysis of clinical trials with rare events
BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, Vol. 57, Iss. 4, 2015-07 ,pp. :
How to critically read ecological meta‐analyses
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, 2015-06 ,pp. :
Publication bias in meta‐analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 34, Iss. 20, 2015-09 ,pp. :