首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      


Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis via inverse probability weighting using clinical trial registries
Authors:Ao Huang  Kosuke Morikawa  Tim Friede  Satoshi Hattori
Institution:1. Department of Biomedical Statistics, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan;2. Graduate School of Engineering Science, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan;3. Department of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;4. Department of Biomedical Statistics, Graduate School of Medicine, Integrated Frontier Research for Medical Science Division, Institute for Open and Transdisciplinary ResearchInitiatives (OTRI), Osaka University, Suita City, Osaka, Japan
Abstract:Publication bias is a major concern in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Various sensitivity analysis or bias-correction methods have been developed based on selection models, and they have some advantages over the widely used trim-and-fill bias-correction method. However, likelihood methods based on selection models may have difficulty in obtaining precise estimates and reasonable confidence intervals, or require a rather complicated sensitivity analysis process. Herein, we develop a simple publication bias adjustment method by utilizing the information on conducted but still unpublished trials from clinical trial registries. We introduce an estimating equation for parameter estimation in the selection function by regarding the publication bias issue as a missing data problem under the missing not at random assumption. With the estimated selection function, we introduce the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method to estimate the overall mean across studies. Furthermore, the IPW versions of heterogeneity measures such as the between-study variance and the I2 measure are proposed. We propose methods to construct confidence intervals based on asymptotic normal approximation as well as on parametric bootstrap. Through numerical experiments, we observed that the estimators successfully eliminated bias, and the confidence intervals had empirical coverage probabilities close to the nominal level. On the other hand, the confidence interval based on asymptotic normal approximation is much wider in some scenarios than the bootstrap confidence interval. Therefore, the latter is recommended for practical use.
Keywords:clinical trial registry  missing not at random  propensity score  sensitivity analysis  systematic review
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号