Cargando…

The use of one-stage meta-analytic method based on individual participant data for binary adverse events under the rule of three: a simulation study

OBJECTIVE: In evidence synthesis practice, dealing with binary rare adverse events (AEs) is a challenging problem. The pooled estimates for rare AEs through traditional inverse variance (IV), Mantel-Haenszel (MH), and Yusuf-Peto (Peto) methods are suboptimal, as the biases tend to be large. We propo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheng, Liang-Liang, Ju, Ke, Cai, Rui-Lie, Xu, Chang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6347966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697486
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6295
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: In evidence synthesis practice, dealing with binary rare adverse events (AEs) is a challenging problem. The pooled estimates for rare AEs through traditional inverse variance (IV), Mantel-Haenszel (MH), and Yusuf-Peto (Peto) methods are suboptimal, as the biases tend to be large. We proposed the “one-stage” approach based on multilevel variance component logistic regression (MVCL) to handle this problem. METHODS: We used simulations to generate trials of individual participant data (IPD) with a series of predefined parameters. We compared the performance of the MVCL “one-stage” approach and the five classical methods (fixed/random effect IV, fixed/random effect MH, and Peto) for rare binary AEs under different scenarios, which included different sample size setting rules, effect sizes, between-study heterogeneity, and numbers of studies in each meta-analysis. The percentage bias, mean square error (MSE), coverage probability, and average width of the 95% confidence intervals were used as performance indicators. RESULTS: We set 52 scenarios and each scenario was simulated 1,000 times. Under the rule of three (a sample size setting rule to ensure a 95% chance of detecting at least one AE case), the MVCL “one-stage” IPD method had the lowest percentage bias in most of the situations and the bias remained at a very low level (<10%), when compared to IV, MH, and Peto methods. In addition, the MVCL “one-stage” IPD method generally had the lowest MSE and the narrowest average width of 95% confidence intervals. However, it did not show better coverage probability over the other five methods. CONCLUSIONS: The MVCL “one-stage” IPD meta-analysis is a useful method to handle binary rare events and superior compared to traditional methods under the rule of three. Further meta-analyses may take account of the “one-stage” IPD method for pooling rare event data.