Comparison of random-effects meta-analysis models for the relative risk in the case of rare events: A simulation study

18Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Pooling the relative risk (RR) across studies investigating rare events, for example, adverse events, via meta-analytical methods still presents a challenge to researchers. The main reason for this is the high probability of observing no events in treatment or control group or both, resulting in an undefined log RR (the basis of standard meta-analysis). Other technical challenges ensue, for example, the violation of normality assumptions, or bias due to exclusion of studies and application of continuity corrections, leading to poor performance of standard approaches. In the present simulation study, we compared three recently proposed alternative models (random-effects [RE] Poisson regression, RE zero-inflated Poisson [ZIP] regression, binomial regression) to the standard methods in conjunction with different continuity corrections and to different versions of beta-binomial regression. Based on our investigation of the models' performance in 162 different simulation settings informed by meta-analyses from the Cochrane database and distinguished by different underlying true effects, degrees of between-study heterogeneity, numbers of primary studies, group size ratios, and baseline risks, we recommend the use of the RE Poisson regression model. The beta-binomial model recommended by Kuss (2015) also performed well. Decent performance was also exhibited by the ZIP models, but they also had considerable convergence issues. We stress that these recommendations are only valid for meta-analyses with larger numbers of primary studies. All models are applied to data from two Cochrane reviews to illustrate differences between and issues of the models. Limitations as well as practical implications and recommendations are discussed; a flowchart summarizing recommendations is provided.

References Powered by Scopus

Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4

58525Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions

36568Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

32731Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical effectiveness, safety, adherence and risk compensation in all populations

108Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia in patients receiving poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors for the treatment of solid tumors: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

27Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Synthesis of evidence from zero-events studies: A comparison of one-stage framework methods

15Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Beisemann, M., Doebler, P., & Holling, H. (2020). Comparison of random-effects meta-analysis models for the relative risk in the case of rare events: A simulation study. Biometrical Journal, 62(7), 1597–1630. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201900379

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 6

60%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

20%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

10%

Researcher 1

10%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 4

57%

Chemistry 1

14%

Social Sciences 1

14%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free