Determining fragility and robustness to missing data in binary outcome meta-analyses, illustrated with conflicting associations between vitamin D and cancer mortality
Grimes, D. R.
Show abstract
Meta-analysis is a vital component in clinical decision making, but previous work found binary event meta-analytic results can be fragile, affected by only a small number of patients in specific trials. Meta-analyses can also miss literature, and a method for estimating how much additional unseen data would flip results would be a useful tool. This works establishes a complementary and generalisable definition of meta-analytic fragility, based on Ellipse of Insignificance (EOI) and Region of Attainable Redaction (ROAR) methods originally developed for dichotomous outcome trials. This method does not require trial-specific alterations to estimate fragility and yields a general method to estimate robustness of a meta-analysis to data redaction or addition of hypothetical trial outcomes. This method is applied to 3 meta-analyses with conflicting findings on the association of vitamin D supplementation and cancer mortality. A full meta-analysis of all trials cited in the 3 meta-analyses yielded no association between vitamin D supplementation and cancer mortality. Using the method outlined here, it was determined that meta-analytic fragility was high in all cases, with recoding of just 5 patients in the full cohort of 133,262 patients was enough to cross the significance threshold. Small amounts of redacted or non-included data also had substantial impact on each meta-analysis, with addition of just 3 hypothetical patients to an ostensibly significant meta-analyses (N = 38,538) enough to yield a null result. This method for analytical fragility is complementary to previous investigations that suggested meta-analyses are frequently fragile. It further shows that merely increasing the sample size is not an assurance against fragility. Caution should be advised when interpreting the results of meta-analyses and conflicting results may stem from inherent fragility and should be carefully employed.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 95%
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 95%
- Fast and frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: a meta-research study 93%
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 93%
- Estimating and Testing an Index of Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes in Comparative Studies 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 94%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 93%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies 94%
- Tools for the assessment of quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review 92%
- Causes of Outcome Learning: A causal inference-inspired machine learning approach to disentangling common combinations of potential causes of a health outcome 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.