Statistical Methods in Medical Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vandermeer, B.
Right arrow Articles by Wiebe, N.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vandermeer, B.
Right arrow Articles by Wiebe, N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
First published on June 18, 2008
Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2008, doi:10.1177/0962280208092559


Article

Meta-analyses of safety data: a comparison of exact versusasymptotic methods

Ben Vandermeer1*, Liza Bialy1, Nicola Hooton1, Lisa Hartling1, Terry P. Klassen1, Bradley Johnston2, and Natasha Wiebe3

1 University of Alberta Evidence Based Practice Centre, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence
2 University of Alberta, Department of Medicine
3 University of Alberta Clinical Nephrology Research Group

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.


   Abstract

The objectives of this study were to establish and describe a database of Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses of safety data and to determine under what conditions exact methods differ from asymptotic methods in meta-analyses of safety data. A sample of Cochrane (n = 500) and non-Cochrane (n = 200) systematic reviews was randomly selected and a database of safety meta-analyses established. Point estimates and confidence intervals for each meta-analysis were recalculated using exact methods and compared to the results of asymptotic methods. Cochrane reviews were nearly four times as likely as non-Cochrane reviews to contain meta-analyses of safety data (35% compared to 9%). More than 50% of safety meta-analyses contained an outcome with a rare event rate (<5%) and 30% contained at least one study with no events in one arm of the study. For rare event meta-analyses, exact point estimates differed substantially from asymptotic estimates 46% of the time, compared to 17% for those without rare events. Exact confidence intervals differed substantially from asymptotic ones 67% of the time compared to only 19% for those without rare events. The magnitude of differences was also correlated with the number of studies and the summary statistic used to combine the data. Asymptotic methods will not always be a good approximation for exact methods in safety meta-analyses. Event rates and number of studies should be closely examined when choosing the statistical method for combining rare event data


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?