Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Methodology

Cannons and sparrows: an exact maximum likelihood non-parametric test for meta-analysis of k 2 × 2 tables

Author: Lawrence M. Paul

Published in: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The use of meta-analysis to aggregate multiple studies has increased dramatically over the last 30 years. For meta-analysis of homogeneous data where the effect sizes for the studies contributing to the meta-analysis differ only by statistical error, the Mantel–Haenszel technique has typically been utilized. If homogeneity cannot be assumed or established, the most popular technique is the inverse-variance DerSimonian–Laird technique. However, both of these techniques are based on large sample, asymptotic assumptions and are, at best, an approximation especially when the number of cases observed in any cell of the corresponding contingency tables is small.

Results

This paper develops an exact, non-parametric test based on a maximum likelihood test statistic as an alternative to the asymptotic techniques. Further, the test can be used across a wide range of heterogeneity. Monte Carlo simulations show that for the homogeneous case, the ML-NP-EXACT technique to be generally more powerful than the DerSimonian–Laird inverse-variance technique for realistic, smaller values of disease probability, and across a large range of odds ratios, number of contributing studies, and sample size. Possibly most important, for large values of heterogeneity, the pre-specified level of Type I Error is much better maintained by the ML-NP-EXACT technique relative to the DerSimonian–Laird technique. A fully tested implementation in the R statistical language is freely available from the author.

Conclusions

This research has developed an exact test for the meta-analysis of dichotomous data. The ML-NP-EXACT technique was strongly superior to the DerSimonian–Laird technique in maintaining a pre-specified level of Type I Error. As shown, the DerSimonian–Laird technique demonstrated many large violations of this level. Given the various biases towards finding statistical significance prevalent in epidemiology today, a strong focus on maintaining a pre-specified level of Type I Error would seem critical.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Shapiro S. Commentary. Oligognostic mega-analysis. Is archie turning in his grave? Maturitas. 2015;81(4):439–41.CrossRefPubMed Shapiro S. Commentary. Oligognostic mega-analysis. Is archie turning in his grave? Maturitas. 2015;81(4):439–41.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
5.
go back to reference Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A Contain Pap Math Phys Character. 1933;231:289–337.CrossRef Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A Contain Pap Math Phys Character. 1933;231:289–337.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Localio AR. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med. 2007;26(1):53–77.CrossRefPubMed Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Localio AR. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med. 2007;26(1):53–77.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Higgins J, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: cochrane book series. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. p. 481–529.CrossRef Higgins J, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: cochrane book series. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. p. 481–529.CrossRef
9.
10.
go back to reference Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22(4):719–48.PubMed Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22(4):719–48.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Mantel N, Fleiss J. Minimum expected cell size requirements for the Mantel-Haenszel one-degree-of-freedom Chi square test and a related rapid procedure. Am J Epidemiol. 1980;112(1):129–34.CrossRefPubMed Mantel N, Fleiss J. Minimum expected cell size requirements for the Mantel-Haenszel one-degree-of-freedom Chi square test and a related rapid procedure. Am J Epidemiol. 1980;112(1):129–34.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Fisher RA. Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1925. Fisher RA. Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1925.
13.
go back to reference Higgins JPT. Commentary: heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1158–60.CrossRefPubMed Higgins JPT. Commentary: heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1158–60.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327(7414):557.CrossRef Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327(7414):557.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Bhaumik DK, Amatya A, Normand SLT, Greenhouse J, Kaizar E, Neelon B, et al. Meta-analysis of rare binary adverse event data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107(498):555–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bhaumik DK, Amatya A, Normand SLT, Greenhouse J, Kaizar E, Neelon B, et al. Meta-analysis of rare binary adverse event data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107(498):555–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Agresti A, Wackerly D. Some exact conditional tests of independence for r × c cross-classification tables. Psychometrika. 1977;42(1):111–24.CrossRef Agresti A, Wackerly D. Some exact conditional tests of independence for r × c cross-classification tables. Psychometrika. 1977;42(1):111–24.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd ed. New York: WH Freeman; 1994. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd ed. New York: WH Freeman; 1994.
18.
go back to reference Kullback S. Information theory and statistics. Reprint of the 2nd (1968) ed. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc.; 1997. Kullback S. Information theory and statistics. Reprint of the 2nd (1968) ed. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc.; 1997.
19.
go back to reference Agresti A. A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Stat Sci. 1992;7(1):131–53.CrossRef Agresti A. A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Stat Sci. 1992;7(1):131–53.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Thomas DG. Exact and asymptotic methods for the combination of 2 × 2 tables. Comput Biomed Res. 1975;8(5):423–46.CrossRefPubMed Thomas DG. Exact and asymptotic methods for the combination of 2 × 2 tables. Comput Biomed Res. 1975;8(5):423–46.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research, vol. 1. The analysis of case-control studies. 132nd ed. Geneva: Distributed for IARC by WHO; 1980. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research, vol. 1. The analysis of case-control studies. 132nd ed. Geneva: Distributed for IARC by WHO; 1980.
22.
go back to reference Yao Q, Tritchler D. An exact analysis of conditional independence in several 2 × 2 contingency tables. Biometrics. 1993;49(1):233–6.CrossRef Yao Q, Tritchler D. An exact analysis of conditional independence in several 2 × 2 contingency tables. Biometrics. 1993;49(1):233–6.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Yao Q. An exact analysis for several 2 × 2 contingency tables. Dissertation ed, University of Toronto; 1991. Yao Q. An exact analysis for several 2 × 2 contingency tables. Dissertation ed, University of Toronto; 1991.
24.
go back to reference Mcelvenny DM. Meta-analysis of rare diseases in occupational epidemiology. Doctoral dissertation, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; 2017. Mcelvenny DM. Meta-analysis of rare diseases in occupational epidemiology. Doctoral dissertation, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; 2017.
25.
go back to reference IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Hogg RV, McKean JW, Craig AT. Introduction to mathematical statistics. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2004. Hogg RV, McKean JW, Craig AT. Introduction to mathematical statistics. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2004.
27.
go back to reference Cooley JW, Tukey JW. An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series. Math Comput. 1965;19(90):297–301.CrossRef Cooley JW, Tukey JW. An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series. Math Comput. 1965;19(90):297–301.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Schwarzer G. Meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7(3):40–5. Schwarzer G. Meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7(3):40–5.
31.
go back to reference Mollick E. Establishing Moore’s law. IEEE Ann History Comput. 2006;28(3):62–75.CrossRef Mollick E. Establishing Moore’s law. IEEE Ann History Comput. 2006;28(3):62–75.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cannons and sparrows: an exact maximum likelihood non-parametric test for meta-analysis of k 2 × 2 tables
Author
Lawrence M. Paul
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1742-7622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-018-0077-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 1/2018 Go to the issue