4.3 Article

Measures of single arm outcome in meta-analyses of rare events in the presence of competing risks

期刊

BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL
卷 57, 期 4, 页码 649-660

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201400119

关键词

Arcsine transformation; Competing risks; Generalized linear mixed model; Meta-analysis; Rare events; Survival

资金

  1. ENCCA [FP7-HEALTH-F2-2011 261474]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When performing single arm meta-analyses of rare events in small populations, if the outcome of interest is incidence, it is not uncommon to have at least one study with zero events, especially in the presence of competing risks. In this paper, we address the problem of how to include studies with zero events in inverse variance meta-analyses when individual patient data are not available, going beyond the naive approach of not including the study or the use of a continuity correction. The proposed solution is the arcsine transformation of the crude cumulative incidence as its approximate variance, which is inversely proportional to the sample size, can be calculated also for studies with a zero estimate. As an alternative, generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) can be used. Simulations were performed to compare the results from inverse variance method meta-analyses of the arcsine transformed cumulative incidence to those obtained from meta-analyses of the cumulative incidence itself and of the logit transformation of the cumulative incidence. The comparisons have been carried out for different scenarios of heterogeneity, incidence, and censoring and for competing and not competing risks. The arcsine transformation showed the smallest bias and the highest coverage among models assuming within study normality. At the same time, the GLMM model had the best performance at very low incidences. The proposed method was applied to the clinical context that motivated this work, i.e. a meta-analysis of 5-year crude cumulative incidence of central nervous system recurrences in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据