首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Wiley-Blackwell Online Open >Detecting small‐study effects and funnel plot asymmetry in meta‐analysis of survival data: A comparison of new and existing tests
【2h】

Detecting small‐study effects and funnel plot asymmetry in meta‐analysis of survival data: A comparison of new and existing tests

机译:在生存数据的荟萃分析中检测小研究效应和漏斗图不对称:新测试与现有测试的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Small‐study effects are a common threat in systematic reviews and may indicate publication bias. Their existence is often verified by visual inspection of the funnel plot. Formal tests to assess the presence of funnel plot asymmetry typically estimate the association between the reported effect size and their standard error, the total sample size, or the inverse of the total sample size. In this paper, we demonstrate that the application of these tests may be less appropriate in meta‐analysis of survival data, where censoring influences statistical significance of the hazard ratio. We subsequently propose 2 new tests that are based on the total number of observed events and adopt a multiplicative variance component. We compare the performance of the various funnel plot asymmetry tests in an extensive simulation study where we varied the true hazard ratio (0.5 to 1), the number of published trials (N=10 to 100), the degree of censoring within trials (0% to 90%), and the mechanism leading to participant dropout (noninformative versus informative). Results demonstrate that previous well‐known tests for detecting funnel plot asymmetry suffer from low power or excessive type‐I error rates in meta‐analysis of survival data, particularly when trials are affected by participant dropout. Because our novel test (adopting estimates of the asymptotic precision as study weights) yields reasonable power and maintains appropriate type‐I error rates, we recommend its use to evaluate funnel plot asymmetry in meta‐analysis of survival data. The use of funnel plot asymmetry tests should, however, be avoided when there are few trials available for any meta‐analysis.
机译:小型研究的影响是系统评价中的常见威胁,并可能表明出版偏见。它们的存在通常通过漏斗图的目视检查来验证。评估漏斗图不对称性的形式化测试通常会估计所报告的效应量与其标准误,总样本量或总样本量的倒数之间的关联。在本文中,我们证明了在生存数据的荟萃分析中,这些检查的应用可能不太合适,因为审查会影响危险比的统计显着性。随后,我们根据观察到的事件总数提出了2种新的检验,并采用了乘法方差分量。我们在广泛的模拟研究中比较了各种漏斗图不对称测试的性能,在该研究中,我们改变了真实的危险比(0.5到1),已发表试验的数量(N = 10到100),试验中的审查程度(0) %到90%),以及导致参与者退出的机制(非信息性还是信息性)。结果表明,以前的用于检测漏斗图不对称性的著名测试在生存数据的荟萃分析中遭受了低功耗或I型错误率过高的困扰,特别是当试验受到参与者辍学的影响时。因为我们的新测试(采用渐近精度的估计作为研究权重)可以产生合理的功效并保持适当的I型错误率,所以我们建议在生存数据的荟萃分析中使用它来评估漏斗图不对称性。但是,当很少有可用于任何荟萃分析的试验时,应避免使用漏斗图不对称测试。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号