Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2008

Open Access 01-12-2008 | Research article

Simpson's paradox visualized: The example of the Rosiglitazone meta-analysis

Authors: Gerta Rücker, Martin Schumacher

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Simpson's paradox is sometimes referred to in the areas of epidemiology and clinical research. It can also be found in meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. However, though readers are able to recalculate examples from hypothetical as well as real data, they may have problems to easily figure where it emerges from.

Method

First, two kinds of plots are proposed to illustrate the phenomenon graphically, a scatter plot and a line graph. Subsequently, these can be overlaid, resulting in a overlay plot. The plots are applied to the recent large meta-analysis of adverse effects of rosiglitazone on myocardial infarction and to an example from the literature. A large set of meta-analyses is screened for further examples.

Results

As noted earlier by others, occurrence of Simpson's paradox in the meta-analytic setting, if present, is associated with imbalance of treatment arm size. This is well illustrated by the proposed plots. The rosiglitazone meta-analysis shows an effect reversion if all trials are pooled. In a sample of 157 meta-analyses, nine showed an effect reversion after pooling, though non-significant in all cases.

Conclusion

The plots give insight on how the imbalance of trial arm size works as a confounder, thus producing Simpson's paradox. Readers can see why meta-analytic methods must be used and what is wrong with simple pooling.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Yule G: Notes on the theory of association of attributes of statistics. Biometrika. 1903, 2: 121-134. 10.1093/biomet/2.2.121.CrossRef Yule G: Notes on the theory of association of attributes of statistics. Biometrika. 1903, 2: 121-134. 10.1093/biomet/2.2.121.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Simpson E: The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 1951, 13: 238-241. Simpson E: The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 1951, 13: 238-241.
3.
go back to reference Baker SG, Kramer BS: Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies. Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine. 2001, 10 (9): 867-872. 10.1089/152460901753285769.CrossRefPubMed Baker SG, Kramer BS: Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies. Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine. 2001, 10 (9): 867-872. 10.1089/152460901753285769.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Greenland S, Morgenstern H: Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification. Int J Epidemiol. 1989, 18: 269-274. 10.1093/ije/18.1.269.CrossRefPubMed Greenland S, Morgenstern H: Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification. Int J Epidemiol. 1989, 18: 269-274. 10.1093/ije/18.1.269.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Appleton D, French J, Vanderpump M: Ignoring a covariate: An example of Simpson's paradox. The American Statistician. 1996, 50 (4): 340-341. 10.2307/2684931. Appleton D, French J, Vanderpump M: Ignoring a covariate: An example of Simpson's paradox. The American Statistician. 1996, 50 (4): 340-341. 10.2307/2684931.
7.
go back to reference Reintjes R, de Boer A, van Pelt W, de Groot JM: Simpson's paradox: An example from hospital epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000, 11: 81-83. 10.1097/00001648-200001000-00017.CrossRefPubMed Reintjes R, de Boer A, van Pelt W, de Groot JM: Simpson's paradox: An example from hospital epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000, 11: 81-83. 10.1097/00001648-200001000-00017.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Hanley JA, Theriault G: Simpson's paradox in meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2000, 11 (5): 613-10.1097/00001648-200009000-00022.CrossRefPubMed Hanley JA, Theriault G: Simpson's paradox in meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2000, 11 (5): 613-10.1097/00001648-200009000-00022.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Edwards A: A cautionary tale. Significance. 2007, 2: 47-48. 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2007.00223.x.CrossRef Edwards A: A cautionary tale. Significance. 2007, 2: 47-48. 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2007.00223.x.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Altman DG, Deeks JJ: Meta-analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2002, 2: 3-10.1186/1471-2288-2-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Altman DG, Deeks JJ: Meta-analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2002, 2: 3-10.1186/1471-2288-2-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Cates CJ: Simpson's paradox and calculation of number needed to treat from meta-analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2002, 2 (): 1-10.1186/1471-2288-2-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cates CJ: Simpson's paradox and calculation of number needed to treat from meta-analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2002, 2 (): 1-10.1186/1471-2288-2-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Lievre M, Cucherat M, Leizorovicz A: Pooling, meta-analysis, and the evaluation of drug safety. Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2002, 3: 6-10.1186/1468-6708-3-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lievre M, Cucherat M, Leizorovicz A: Pooling, meta-analysis, and the evaluation of drug safety. Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2002, 3: 6-10.1186/1468-6708-3-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Baker SG, Kramer BS: The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: if A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C?. BMC Medical Research Methodolology. 2002, 2: 13-10.1186/1471-2288-2-13.CrossRef Baker SG, Kramer BS: The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: if A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C?. BMC Medical Research Methodolology. 2002, 2: 13-10.1186/1471-2288-2-13.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Baker SG, Kramer BS: Randomized trials, generalizability, and meta-analysis: graphical insights for binary outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2003, 3: 10-10.1186/1471-2288-3-10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Baker SG, Kramer BS: Randomized trials, generalizability, and meta-analysis: graphical insights for binary outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2003, 3: 10-10.1186/1471-2288-3-10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Jeon J, Chun H, Bae J: Chances of Simpson's paradox. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society. 1987, 16: 117-125. Jeon J, Chun H, Bae J: Chances of Simpson's paradox. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society. 1987, 16: 117-125.
16.
go back to reference Nissen SE, Wolski K: Effect of Rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular diseases. NEJM. 2007, 356 (24): 2457-2471. 10.1056/NEJMoa072761.CrossRefPubMed Nissen SE, Wolski K: Effect of Rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular diseases. NEJM. 2007, 356 (24): 2457-2471. 10.1056/NEJMoa072761.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P: Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 1985, 27: 335-371. 10.1016/S0033-0620(85)80003-7.CrossRefPubMed Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P: Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 1985, 27: 335-371. 10.1016/S0033-0620(85)80003-7.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Diamond GA, Bax L, Kaul S: Uncertain Effects of Rosiglitazone on the Risk for Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Death. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007, 147 (8): 578-581.CrossRefPubMed Diamond GA, Bax L, Kaul S: Uncertain Effects of Rosiglitazone on the Risk for Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Death. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007, 147 (8): 578-581.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Shuster J, Jones L, Salmon D: Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: The Rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Statistics in Medicine. 2007, 26: 4375-4385. 10.1002/sim.3060.CrossRefPubMed Shuster J, Jones L, Salmon D: Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: The Rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Statistics in Medicine. 2007, 26: 4375-4385. 10.1002/sim.3060.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Carpenter JR, Rücker G, Schwarzer G: Letter to the Editor. Statistics in Medicine. 2007, [DOI: 10.1002/sim.3173]. Carpenter JR, Rücker G, Schwarzer G: Letter to the Editor. Statistics in Medicine. 2007, [DOI: 10.1002/sim.3173].
21.
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. Statistics in Medicine. 2007, 26: 53-77. 10.1002/sim.2528.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. Statistics in Medicine. 2007, 26: 53-77. 10.1002/sim.2528.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
go back to reference Bracken M: Rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med. 2007, 357 (9): 937-938. 10.1056/NEJMc071602. [Author reply 939–940].CrossRefPubMed Bracken M: Rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med. 2007, 357 (9): 937-938. 10.1056/NEJMc071602. [Author reply 939–940].CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2002, 21: 1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186.CrossRefPubMed Higgins JPT, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2002, 21: 1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR: Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine. 2008, 27 (5): 746-763. 10.1002/sim.2971.CrossRefPubMed Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR: Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine. 2008, 27 (5): 746-763. 10.1002/sim.2971.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Wainer H, Brown LM: Two Statistical Paradoxes in the Interpretation of Group Differences: Illustrated with Medical School Admission and Licensing Data. The American Statistician. 2004, 58 (2): 117-123. Wainer H, Brown LM: Two Statistical Paradoxes in the Interpretation of Group Differences: Illustrated with Medical School Admission and Licensing Data. The American Statistician. 2004, 58 (2): 117-123.
27.
go back to reference Carpenter JR, Schwarzer G, Rücker G, Künstler R: Empirical evaluation shows the Copas selection model provides a useful summary in 80% of meta-analyses. 2007, Carpenter JR, Schwarzer G, Rücker G, Künstler R: Empirical evaluation shows the Copas selection model provides a useful summary in 80% of meta-analyses. 2007,
28.
go back to reference R Development Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2006, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, [ISBN 3-900051-07-0]., [http://www.R-project.org] R Development Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2006, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, [ISBN 3-900051-07-0]., [http://​www.​R-project.​org]
Metadata
Title
Simpson's paradox visualized: The example of the Rosiglitazone meta-analysis
Authors
Gerta Rücker
Martin Schumacher
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2008
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-34

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2008 Go to the issue