Year: 2015
Type: article
Abstract: Meta-analysis plays an important role in the analysis and interpretation of clinical trials in medicine and of trials in the social sciences but is of importance in other fields (e.g., particle physics [1]) as well.In 2001, Hartung and Knapp [2,3] introduced a new approach to test for a nonzero treatment effect in a metaanalysis of k studies.Hartung and Knapp [2, 3] suggest to use the random effects estimate according to DerSimonian and Laird [4] and propose a variance estimator q so that the test statistics for the treatment effect is t distributed with k -1 degrees of freedom.In their paper on dichotomous endpoints, results of a simulation study with 6 and 12 studies illustrate for risk differences, log relative risks and log odds ratios, the excellent properties regarding control of the type I error, and the achieved power [2].They investigate different sample sizes in each study, and different amounts of heterogeneity between studies and compare their new approach (Hartung and Knapp approach (HK)) with the fixed effects approach (FE) and the classical random effects approach by DerSimonian and Laird (DL).It can be clearly seen that, with increasing heterogeneity, the FE as well as the DL does not control the type I error rate, while the HK keeps the type I error rate in nearly every situation and in every scale.Advantages and disadvantages of the two standard approaches and respective test statistics have been extensively discussed (e.g., [5][6][7]).While it is well known that the FE is too liberal in the presence of heterogeneity, the DL is often thought to be rather conservative because heterogeneity is incorporated into the standard error of the estimate for the treatment effect and this should lead to larger confidence intervals and smaller test statistics for the treatment effect ([8] chapter 9.4.4.3).This was disproved among others by Ziegler and Victor [7], who observed in situations with increasing heterogeneity severe inflation of the type I error for the DerSimonian and Laird test statistic.Notably, the asymptotic properties of this approach will be valid, if both the number of studies and the number of patients per study are large enough ([8] chapter 9.54, [9, 10]).Although power issues of meta-analysis tests have received some interest, comparisons between the approaches and the situation with two studies were not the main interest [11,12].Borenstein et al. ([10], pp.363/364) recommend the random effects approach in general for meta-analysis and do not recommend meta-analyses of small numbers of studies.However, meta-analyses of few and of even only two trials are of importance.In drug licensing in many instances, two successful phase III clinical trials have to be submitted as pivotal evidence for drug licensing [13], and summarizing the findings of these studies is required according to the International Conference on Harmonisation guidelines E9 and M4E ([14, 15]).It is stated that 'An overall summary and synthesis of the evidence on safety and efficacy from all the reported clinical trials is required for a marketing application [...].This may be accompanied, when appropriate, by a statistical combination
Source: Statistics in Medicine
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6473
Institution: Medizinische Hochschule Hannover
Language: English
Subfield: Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $5,450
Funder: FP7 Health
Award: G8744047005
OpenAlex ID: W1511262714