Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research Article

A random effects meta-analysis model with Box-Cox transformation

Authors: Yusuke Yamaguchi, Kazushi Maruo, Christopher Partlett, Richard D. Riley

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In a random effects meta-analysis model, true treatment effects for each study are routinely assumed to follow a normal distribution. However, normality is a restrictive assumption and the misspecification of the random effects distribution may result in a misleading estimate of overall mean for the treatment effect, an inappropriate quantification of heterogeneity across studies and a wrongly symmetric prediction interval.

Methods

We focus on problems caused by an inappropriate normality assumption of the random effects distribution, and propose a novel random effects meta-analysis model where a Box-Cox transformation is applied to the observed treatment effect estimates. The proposed model aims to normalise an overall distribution of observed treatment effect estimates, which is sum of the within-study sampling distributions and the random effects distribution. When sampling distributions are approximately normal, non-normality in the overall distribution will be mainly due to the random effects distribution, especially when the between-study variation is large relative to the within-study variation. The Box-Cox transformation addresses this flexibly according to the observed departure from normality. We use a Bayesian approach for estimating parameters in the proposed model, and suggest summarising the meta-analysis results by an overall median, an interquartile range and a prediction interval. The model can be applied for any kind of variables once the treatment effect estimate is defined from the variable.

Results

A simulation study suggested that when the overall distribution of treatment effect estimates are skewed, the overall mean and conventional I 2 from the normal random effects model could be inappropriate summaries, and the proposed model helped reduce this issue. We illustrated the proposed model using two examples, which revealed some important differences on summary results, heterogeneity measures and prediction intervals from the normal random effects model.

Conclusions

The random effects meta-analysis with the Box-Cox transformation may be an important tool for examining robustness of traditional meta-analysis results against skewness on the observed treatment effect estimates. Further critical evaluation of the method is needed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010; 1:97–111.CrossRefPubMed Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010; 1:97–111.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Bayesian methods of analysis for cluster randomized trials with binary outcome data. Stat Med. 2001; 20:453–72.CrossRefPubMed Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Bayesian methods of analysis for cluster randomized trials with binary outcome data. Stat Med. 2001; 20:453–72.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Lee KJ, Thompson SG. Flexible parametric models for random-effects distributions. Stat Med. 2008; 27:418–34.CrossRefPubMed Lee KJ, Thompson SG. Flexible parametric models for random-effects distributions. Stat Med. 2008; 27:418–34.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med. 1995; 14:2685–99.CrossRefPubMed Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med. 1995; 14:2685–99.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Demidenko E. Mixed Models: Theory and Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005. Demidenko E. Mixed Models: Theory and Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005.
6.
go back to reference Böhning D. Computer-assisted Analysis of Mixtures and Applications: Meta-analysis, Disease Mapping and Others. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2000. Böhning D. Computer-assisted Analysis of Mixtures and Applications: Meta-analysis, Disease Mapping and Others. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2000.
7.
go back to reference Baker R, Jackson D. A new approach to outliers in meta-analysis. Health Care Manage Sci. 2008; 11:121–31.CrossRef Baker R, Jackson D. A new approach to outliers in meta-analysis. Health Care Manage Sci. 2008; 11:121–31.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gumedze FN, Jackson D. A random effects variance shift model for detecting and accommodating outliers in meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11:19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gumedze FN, Jackson D. A random effects variance shift model for detecting and accommodating outliers in meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11:19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc: Ser A. 2009; 172:137–59.CrossRef Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc: Ser A. 2009; 172:137–59.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1964; 26:211–46. Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1964; 26:211–46.
11.
go back to reference Carroll RJ, Ruppert D. Power transformations when fitting theoretical models to data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984; 79:321–8.CrossRef Carroll RJ, Ruppert D. Power transformations when fitting theoretical models to data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984; 79:321–8.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sakia RM. Retransformation bias: a look at the box-cox transformation to linear balanced mixed anova models. Metrika. 1990; 37:345–51.CrossRef Sakia RM. Retransformation bias: a look at the box-cox transformation to linear balanced mixed anova models. Metrika. 1990; 37:345–51.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Sakia RM. The box-cox transformation technique: a review. The Stat. 1992; 41:169–78. Sakia RM. The box-cox transformation technique: a review. The Stat. 1992; 41:169–78.
14.
go back to reference Lipsitz SR, Ibrahim JG, Molenberghs G. Using a box-cox transformation in the analysis of longitudinal data with incomplete responses. Appl Stat. 2000; 49:287–96. Lipsitz SR, Ibrahim JG, Molenberghs G. Using a box-cox transformation in the analysis of longitudinal data with incomplete responses. Appl Stat. 2000; 49:287–96.
15.
go back to reference Gurka MJ, Edwards LJ, Muller KE, Kupper LL. Extending the box-cox transformation to the linear mixed model. J R Stat Soc: Ser A. 2006; 169:273–88.CrossRef Gurka MJ, Edwards LJ, Muller KE, Kupper LL. Extending the box-cox transformation to the linear mixed model. J R Stat Soc: Ser A. 2006; 169:273–88.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kim S, Chen MH, Ibrahim JG, Shah AK, Lin J. Bayesian inference for multivariate meta-analysis box-cox transformation models for individual patient data with applications to evaluation of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Stat Med. 2013; 32:3972–990.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kim S, Chen MH, Ibrahim JG, Shah AK, Lin J. Bayesian inference for multivariate meta-analysis box-cox transformation models for individual patient data with applications to evaluation of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Stat Med. 2013; 32:3972–990.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Raudenbush SW. Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil iq as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. J Educ Psychol. 1984; 76:85–97.CrossRef Raudenbush SW. Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil iq as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. J Educ Psychol. 1984; 76:85–97.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Empirical bayes meta-analysis. J Educ Stat. 1985; 10:75–98.CrossRef Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Empirical bayes meta-analysis. J Educ Stat. 1985; 10:75–98.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Hartung J, Knapp G, Sinha BK. Statistical Meta-Analysis with Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2008.CrossRef Hartung J, Knapp G, Sinha BK. Statistical Meta-Analysis with Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2008.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Häuser W, Bernardy K, Üceyler N, Sommer S. Treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome with antidepressants: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 2008; 301:198–209.CrossRef Häuser W, Bernardy K, Üceyler N, Sommer S. Treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome with antidepressants: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 2008; 301:198–209.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Riley RD, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2011; 342:549.CrossRef Riley RD, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2011; 342:549.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Burton PR, Abrams KR, Jones DR. How vague is vague? a simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in mcmc using winbugs. Stat Med. 2005; 24:2401–028.CrossRefPubMed Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Burton PR, Abrams KR, Jones DR. How vague is vague? a simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in mcmc using winbugs. Stat Med. 2005; 24:2401–028.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2003. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2003.
24.
go back to reference Gelman A. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal. 2006; 1:515–34.CrossRef Gelman A. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal. 2006; 1:515–34.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian methods for cluster randomized trials with continuous responses. Stat Med. 2001; 20:435–52.CrossRefPubMed Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian methods for cluster randomized trials with continuous responses. Stat Med. 2001; 20:435–52.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles J. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-care Evaluation. London: Wiley; 2004. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles J. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-care Evaluation. London: Wiley; 2004.
27.
go back to reference Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the cochrane database of systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012; 41:818–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the cochrane database of systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012; 41:818–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Higgins JPT. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 68:52–60.CrossRefPubMed Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Higgins JPT. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 68:52–60.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21:1539–58.CrossRefPubMed Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21:1539–58.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Goto M, Inoue T, Tsuchiya Y. On estimation of parameters in power-normal distribution. Bull Inf Cybern. 1984; 21:41–53. Goto M, Inoue T, Tsuchiya Y. On estimation of parameters in power-normal distribution. Bull Inf Cybern. 1984; 21:41–53.
32.
go back to reference Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N. Continuous Univariate Distributions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994. Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N. Continuous Univariate Distributions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
33.
go back to reference Maruo K, Shirahata S, Goto M. Underlying assumptions of the power-normal distribution. Behaviormetrika. 2011; 38:85–95.CrossRef Maruo K, Shirahata S, Goto M. Underlying assumptions of the power-normal distribution. Behaviormetrika. 2011; 38:85–95.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Maruo K, Goto M. Percentile estimation based on the power-normal distribution. Comput Stat. 2013; 28:341–56.CrossRef Maruo K, Goto M. Percentile estimation based on the power-normal distribution. Comput Stat. 2013; 28:341–56.CrossRef
35.
36.
go back to reference Kulinskaya E, Morgenthaler S, Staudte RG. Meta Analysis: A Guide to Calibrating and Combining Statistical Evidence. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008. Kulinskaya E, Morgenthaler S, Staudte RG. Meta Analysis: A Guide to Calibrating and Combining Statistical Evidence. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
37.
go back to reference Box GEP, Hill WJ. Correcting inhomogeneity of variance with power transformation weighting. Technometrics. 1974; 16:385–9.CrossRef Box GEP, Hill WJ. Correcting inhomogeneity of variance with power transformation weighting. Technometrics. 1974; 16:385–9.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Atkinson A, Pericchi LR, Smith RL. Grouped likelihood for the shifted power transformation. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1991; 52:473–82. Atkinson A, Pericchi LR, Smith RL. Grouped likelihood for the shifted power transformation. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1991; 52:473–82.
39.
go back to reference Cheng RCH, Traylor L. Non-regular maximum likelihood problems. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995; 57:3–44. Cheng RCH, Traylor L. Non-regular maximum likelihood problems. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995; 57:3–44.
40.
go back to reference Azzalini A. A class of distributions which includes the normal ones. Scand J Stat. 1985; 12:171–8. Azzalini A. A class of distributions which includes the normal ones. Scand J Stat. 1985; 12:171–8.
41.
go back to reference Azzalini A. The Skew-Normal and Related Families. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.CrossRef Azzalini A. The Skew-Normal and Related Families. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A random effects meta-analysis model with Box-Cox transformation
Authors
Yusuke Yamaguchi
Kazushi Maruo
Christopher Partlett
Richard D. Riley
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0376-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue