TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of hypothesis tests for homogeneity in meta-analysis with focus on rare binary events
AU - Zhang, Chiyu
AU - Wang, Xinlei
AU - Chen, Min
AU - Wang, Tao
N1 - Funding Information:
The work by X. W. was supported by National Institutes of Health (grant number: R15GM131390; PI: X. W.] and Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas [grant number: RP190208; PI: T. W.]. The authors thank Editor, Associate Editor and two reviewers for many insightful and constructive comments.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - Analysis of rare binary events is an important problem for biomedical researchers. Due to the sparsity of events in such problems, meta-analysis that integrates information across multiple studies can be applied to increase the efficiency of statistical inference. Although it is critical to examine whether the effect sizes are homogeneous across all studies, a comprehensive review of homogeneity tests has been lacking, and in particular, no attention has been paid to infrequent dichotomous outcomes. We systematically review statistical methods for homogeneity testing. By conducting an extensive simulation analysis and two case studies, we examine the performance of 30 tests in meta-analysis of rare binary outcomes. When using log-odds ratio as the association measure, our simulation results suggest that there is no uniform winner. However, we recommend the test proposed by Kulinskaya and Dollinger (BMC Med Res Methodol, 2015, 15), which uses a gamma distribution to approximate the null distribution, for its generally good performance; for very rare events coupled with small within-study sample sizes, in addition to the Kulinskaya–Dollinger test, we further recommend the conditional score test based on the random-effects hypergeometric model proposed by Liang and Self (Biometrika, 1985, 72:353–358). One should be cautious about the use of the Wald tests, the Lipsitz tests (Biometrics, 1998, 54:148–160), and tests proposed by Bhaumik et al (J Am Stat Assoc, 2012, 107:555–567).
AB - Analysis of rare binary events is an important problem for biomedical researchers. Due to the sparsity of events in such problems, meta-analysis that integrates information across multiple studies can be applied to increase the efficiency of statistical inference. Although it is critical to examine whether the effect sizes are homogeneous across all studies, a comprehensive review of homogeneity tests has been lacking, and in particular, no attention has been paid to infrequent dichotomous outcomes. We systematically review statistical methods for homogeneity testing. By conducting an extensive simulation analysis and two case studies, we examine the performance of 30 tests in meta-analysis of rare binary outcomes. When using log-odds ratio as the association measure, our simulation results suggest that there is no uniform winner. However, we recommend the test proposed by Kulinskaya and Dollinger (BMC Med Res Methodol, 2015, 15), which uses a gamma distribution to approximate the null distribution, for its generally good performance; for very rare events coupled with small within-study sample sizes, in addition to the Kulinskaya–Dollinger test, we further recommend the conditional score test based on the random-effects hypergeometric model proposed by Liang and Self (Biometrika, 1985, 72:353–358). One should be cautious about the use of the Wald tests, the Lipsitz tests (Biometrics, 1998, 54:148–160), and tests proposed by Bhaumik et al (J Am Stat Assoc, 2012, 107:555–567).
KW - Wald test
KW - bootstrap
KW - conditional likelihood
KW - fixed effect
KW - generalized linear mixed-effects model
KW - heterogeneity
KW - random effects
KW - score test
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107042245&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85107042245&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jrsm.1484
DO - 10.1002/jrsm.1484
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34231330
AN - SCOPUS:85107042245
SN - 1759-2879
VL - 12
SP - 408
EP - 428
JO - Research Synthesis Methods
JF - Research Synthesis Methods
IS - 4
ER -