Cargando…

Risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: There are both theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that design and execution factors are associated with bias in controlled trials. Statistically significant moderator effects, such as the effect of trial quality on treatment effect sizes, are rarely detected in individual meta-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hempel, Susanne, Miles, Jeremy NV, Booth, Marika J, Wang, Zhen, Morton, Sally C, Shekelle, Paul G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4219184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24286208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-107
_version_ 1782342549104492544
author Hempel, Susanne
Miles, Jeremy NV
Booth, Marika J
Wang, Zhen
Morton, Sally C
Shekelle, Paul G
author_facet Hempel, Susanne
Miles, Jeremy NV
Booth, Marika J
Wang, Zhen
Morton, Sally C
Shekelle, Paul G
author_sort Hempel, Susanne
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are both theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that design and execution factors are associated with bias in controlled trials. Statistically significant moderator effects, such as the effect of trial quality on treatment effect sizes, are rarely detected in individual meta-analyses, and evidence from meta-epidemiological datasets is inconsistent. The reasons for the disconnect between theory and empirical observation are unclear. The study objective was to explore the power to detect study level moderator effects in meta-analyses. METHODS: We generated meta-analyses using Monte-Carlo simulations and investigated the effect of number of trials, trial sample size, moderator effect size, heterogeneity, and moderator distribution on power to detect moderator effects. The simulations provide a reference guide for investigators to estimate power when planning meta-regressions. RESULTS: The power to detect moderator effects in meta-analyses, for example, effects of study quality on effect sizes, is largely determined by the degree of residual heterogeneity present in the dataset (noise not explained by the moderator). Larger trial sample sizes increase power only when residual heterogeneity is low. A large number of trials or low residual heterogeneity are necessary to detect effects. When the proportion of the moderator is not equal (for example, 25% ‘high quality’, 75% ‘low quality’ trials), power of 80% was rarely achieved in investigated scenarios. Application to an empirical meta-epidemiological dataset with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 92%, τ(2) = 0.285) estimated >200 trials are needed for a power of 80% to show a statistically significant result, even for a substantial moderator effect (0.2), and the number of trials with the less common feature (for example, few ‘high quality’ studies) affects power extensively. CONCLUSIONS: Although study characteristics, such as trial quality, may explain some proportion of heterogeneity across study results in meta-analyses, residual heterogeneity is a crucial factor in determining when associations between moderator variables and effect sizes can be statistically detected. Detecting moderator effects requires more powerful analyses than are employed in most published investigations; hence negative findings should not be considered evidence of a lack of effect, and investigations are not hypothesis-proving unless power calculations show sufficient ability to detect effects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4219184
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42191842014-11-05 Risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis Hempel, Susanne Miles, Jeremy NV Booth, Marika J Wang, Zhen Morton, Sally C Shekelle, Paul G Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: There are both theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that design and execution factors are associated with bias in controlled trials. Statistically significant moderator effects, such as the effect of trial quality on treatment effect sizes, are rarely detected in individual meta-analyses, and evidence from meta-epidemiological datasets is inconsistent. The reasons for the disconnect between theory and empirical observation are unclear. The study objective was to explore the power to detect study level moderator effects in meta-analyses. METHODS: We generated meta-analyses using Monte-Carlo simulations and investigated the effect of number of trials, trial sample size, moderator effect size, heterogeneity, and moderator distribution on power to detect moderator effects. The simulations provide a reference guide for investigators to estimate power when planning meta-regressions. RESULTS: The power to detect moderator effects in meta-analyses, for example, effects of study quality on effect sizes, is largely determined by the degree of residual heterogeneity present in the dataset (noise not explained by the moderator). Larger trial sample sizes increase power only when residual heterogeneity is low. A large number of trials or low residual heterogeneity are necessary to detect effects. When the proportion of the moderator is not equal (for example, 25% ‘high quality’, 75% ‘low quality’ trials), power of 80% was rarely achieved in investigated scenarios. Application to an empirical meta-epidemiological dataset with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 92%, τ(2) = 0.285) estimated >200 trials are needed for a power of 80% to show a statistically significant result, even for a substantial moderator effect (0.2), and the number of trials with the less common feature (for example, few ‘high quality’ studies) affects power extensively. CONCLUSIONS: Although study characteristics, such as trial quality, may explain some proportion of heterogeneity across study results in meta-analyses, residual heterogeneity is a crucial factor in determining when associations between moderator variables and effect sizes can be statistically detected. Detecting moderator effects requires more powerful analyses than are employed in most published investigations; hence negative findings should not be considered evidence of a lack of effect, and investigations are not hypothesis-proving unless power calculations show sufficient ability to detect effects. BioMed Central 2013-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4219184/ /pubmed/24286208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-107 Text en Copyright © 2013 Hempel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methodology
Hempel, Susanne
Miles, Jeremy NV
Booth, Marika J
Wang, Zhen
Morton, Sally C
Shekelle, Paul G
Risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis
title Risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis
title_full Risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis
title_fullStr Risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis
title_short Risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis
title_sort risk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4219184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24286208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-107
work_keys_str_mv AT hempelsusanne riskofbiasasimulationstudyofpowertodetectstudylevelmoderatoreffectsinmetaanalysis
AT milesjeremynv riskofbiasasimulationstudyofpowertodetectstudylevelmoderatoreffectsinmetaanalysis
AT boothmarikaj riskofbiasasimulationstudyofpowertodetectstudylevelmoderatoreffectsinmetaanalysis
AT wangzhen riskofbiasasimulationstudyofpowertodetectstudylevelmoderatoreffectsinmetaanalysis
AT mortonsallyc riskofbiasasimulationstudyofpowertodetectstudylevelmoderatoreffectsinmetaanalysis
AT shekellepaulg riskofbiasasimulationstudyofpowertodetectstudylevelmoderatoreffectsinmetaanalysis