Cannons and sparrows II: the enhanced Bernoulli exact method for determining statistical significance and effect size in the meta-analysis of k 2 × 2 tables.

IF 3.6 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Emerging Themes in Epidemiology Pub Date : 2021-08-03 DOI:10.1186/s12982-021-00101-8
Lawrence M Paul
{"title":"Cannons and sparrows II: the enhanced Bernoulli exact method for determining statistical significance and effect size in the meta-analysis of k 2 × 2 tables.","authors":"Lawrence M Paul","doi":"10.1186/s12982-021-00101-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of meta-analysis to aggregate the results of multiple studies has increased dramatically over the last 40 years. For homogeneous meta-analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel technique has typically been utilized. In such meta-analyses, the effect size across the contributing studies of the meta-analysis differs only by statistical error. If homogeneity cannot be assumed or established, the most popular technique developed to date is the inverse-variance DerSimonian and Laird (DL) technique (DerSimonian and Laird, in Control Clin Trials 7(3):177-88, 1986). However, both of these techniques are based on large sample, asymptotic assumptions. At best, they are approximations especially when the number of cases observed in any cell of the corresponding contingency tables is small.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This research develops an exact, non-parametric test for evaluating statistical significance and a related method for estimating effect size in the meta-analysis of k 2 × 2 tables for any level of heterogeneity as an alternative to the asymptotic techniques. Monte Carlo simulations show that even for large values of heterogeneity, the Enhanced Bernoulli Technique (EBT) is far superior at maintaining the pre-specified level of Type I Error than the DL technique. A fully tested implementation in the R statistical language is freely available from the author. In addition, a second related exact test for estimating the Effect Size was developed and is also freely available.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This research has developed two exact tests for the meta-analysis of dichotomous, categorical data. The EBT technique was strongly superior to the DL technique in maintaining a pre-specified level of Type I Error even at extremely high levels of heterogeneity. As shown, the DL 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. In addition, a related exact method for estimating the Effect Size was developed.</p>","PeriodicalId":39896,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8336385/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-021-00101-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of meta-analysis to aggregate the results of multiple studies has increased dramatically over the last 40 years. For homogeneous meta-analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel technique has typically been utilized. In such meta-analyses, the effect size across the contributing studies of the meta-analysis differs only by statistical error. If homogeneity cannot be assumed or established, the most popular technique developed to date is the inverse-variance DerSimonian and Laird (DL) technique (DerSimonian and Laird, in Control Clin Trials 7(3):177-88, 1986). However, both of these techniques are based on large sample, asymptotic assumptions. At best, they are approximations especially when the number of cases observed in any cell of the corresponding contingency tables is small.

Results: This research develops an exact, non-parametric test for evaluating statistical significance and a related method for estimating effect size in the meta-analysis of k 2 × 2 tables for any level of heterogeneity as an alternative to the asymptotic techniques. Monte Carlo simulations show that even for large values of heterogeneity, the Enhanced Bernoulli Technique (EBT) is far superior at maintaining the pre-specified level of Type I Error than the DL technique. A fully tested implementation in the R statistical language is freely available from the author. In addition, a second related exact test for estimating the Effect Size was developed and is also freely available.

Conclusions: This research has developed two exact tests for the meta-analysis of dichotomous, categorical data. The EBT technique was strongly superior to the DL technique in maintaining a pre-specified level of Type I Error even at extremely high levels of heterogeneity. As shown, the DL 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. In addition, a related exact method for estimating the Effect Size was developed.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大炮和麻雀II:在k 2 × 2表的元分析中确定统计显著性和效应大小的增强型伯努利精确方法。
背景:在过去的40年里,使用荟萃分析来汇总多项研究的结果急剧增加。对于同质荟萃分析,通常使用Mantel-Haenszel技术。在这样的荟萃分析中,荟萃分析的贡献研究之间的效应大小仅因统计误差而不同。如果不能假设或确定同质性,迄今为止最流行的技术是反方差DerSimonian和Laird (DL)技术(DerSimonian和Laird,在对照临床试验7(3):177- 88,1986)。然而,这两种技术都是基于大样本、渐近假设。在最好的情况下,它们是近似值,特别是当在相应列联表的任何单元中观察到的情况数量很少时。结果:本研究开发了一种精确的非参数检验,用于评估统计显著性,并开发了一种相关方法,用于估计任何异质性水平的k 2 × 2表的meta分析中的效应大小,作为渐近技术的替代方法。蒙特卡罗模拟表明,即使对于较大的异质性值,增强伯努利技术(EBT)在保持预先指定的I型误差水平方面远优于DL技术。作者免费提供了一个经过完整测试的R统计语言实现。此外,还开发了第二个相关的精确测试,用于估计效应大小,并且也可以免费获得。结论:本研究为二元分类数据的元分析开发了两个精确的测试。即使在非常高的异质性水平下,EBT技术在维持预先规定的I型误差水平方面明显优于DL技术。如图所示,深度学习技术展示了许多严重违反这一水平的情况。考虑到当今流行病学中普遍存在的寻找统计显著性的各种偏见,将重点放在维持预先规定的I型错误水平上似乎是至关重要的。此外,还提出了一种估算效应量的精确方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
9
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to promote debate and discussion on practical and theoretical aspects of epidemiology. Combining statistical approaches with an understanding of the biology of disease, epidemiologists seek to elucidate the social, environmental and host factors related to adverse health outcomes. Although research findings from epidemiologic studies abound in traditional public health journals, little publication space is devoted to discussion of the practical and theoretical concepts that underpin them. Because of its immediate impact on public health, an openly accessible forum is needed in the field of epidemiology to foster such discussion.
期刊最新文献
Explaining biological differences between men and women by gendered mechanisms. Population cause of death estimation using verbal autopsy methods in large-scale field trials of maternal and child health: lessons learned from a 20-year research collaboration in Central Ghana. Dynamics of COVID-19 progression and the long-term influences of measures on pandemic outcomes. Effect size quantification for interrupted time series analysis: implementation in R and analysis for Covid-19 research. Geographical clustering and geographically weighted regression analysis of home delivery and its determinants in developing regions of Ethiopia: a spatial analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1