Dohoo Ian, Stryhn Henrik, Sanchez Javier
Department of Health Management, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada.
Prev Vet Med. 2007 Sep 14;81(1-3):38-55. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.04.010. Epub 2007 May 2.
Evaluation of important causes of heterogeneity among study results is an important component of any meta-analysis. For factors which can be measured (e.g. population characteristics, indicators of study quality), standard methods such as meta-regression can be used for this evaluation. The underlying risk (i.e. risk of outcome in the control population) can be viewed as a summary of the effects of unmeasured population characteristics so it is a logical candidate for evaluation as a source of heterogeneity. Unfortunately, because of its relationship with the study outcome (odds ratio or relative risk), standard methods should not be used for evaluating underlying risk as a cause of heterogeneity. Three models with different sets of underlying assumptions were evaluated in a simulation study to determine how well they performed in assessing the role of underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity. All models were fit using both Bayesian and frequentist (maximum likelihood random slopes models) estimation procedures and the results compared. Two of the models produced good results (i.e. minimal evidence of bias in parameter estimates), while the third clearly produced biased estimates of some parameters. In general, the Bayesian and frequentist approaches produced similar results. In situations in which the number of studies in a meta-analysis is small ( approximately 10), the maximum likelihood (frequentist) approach was preferable. While the bias induced by heterogeneity associated with underlying risk was generally not large, use of one of the approaches described in this paper will produce better estimates of treatment effect in situations where there is substantial heterogeneity between studies. A model based on the assumption that the number of positive events in each of the treatment and control groups are binomially distributed (Model 1) is the recommended approach.
评估研究结果异质性的重要原因是任何荟萃分析的重要组成部分。对于可测量的因素(如人群特征、研究质量指标),可使用元回归等标准方法进行此评估。潜在风险(即对照组人群的结局风险)可被视为未测量人群特征影响的汇总,因此它是作为异质性来源进行评估的合理候选因素。不幸的是,由于其与研究结局(比值比或相对风险)的关系,不应使用标准方法来评估潜在风险作为异质性的原因。在一项模拟研究中评估了具有不同潜在假设集的三种模型,以确定它们在评估潜在风险作为异质性来源的作用方面表现如何。所有模型均使用贝叶斯和频率主义(最大似然随机斜率模型)估计程序进行拟合,并比较结果。其中两个模型产生了良好的结果(即参数估计中偏差的证据最少),而第三个模型明显产生了一些参数的偏差估计。一般来说,贝叶斯方法和频率主义方法产生了相似的结果。在荟萃分析中的研究数量较少(约10项)的情况下,最大似然(频率主义)方法更可取。虽然与潜在风险相关的异质性引起的偏差通常不大,但在研究之间存在实质性异质性的情况下,使用本文所述的方法之一将产生更好的治疗效果估计。基于每个治疗组和对照组中阳性事件数量呈二项分布的假设的模型(模型1)是推荐的方法。