Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 2, 2002 - Issue 4
Submit an article Journal homepage
270
Views
93
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Meta-analysis of rare and adverse event data

Alexander J Sutton Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK. [email protected]
,
Nicola J Cooper Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK. [email protected]
,
Paul C Lambert Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK. [email protected]
,
David R Jones Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK. [email protected]
,
Keith R Abrams Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK. [email protected]
&
Michael J Sweeting Department of Public Health Sciences, St George’s Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK. [email protected]
Pages 367-379 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song E Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. John Wiley, London, UK (2000).
  • •Provides a broad overview of meta-analysis methods.
  • Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Br. Med. J. 312,71-72 (1996).
  • International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Statistical principles for clinical trials. Stat. Med. 18, 1905–1942 (1999).
  • Senn S. The many modes of meta. Drug Info.j 34,535–549 (2000).
  • Li wan Po A, Herxheimer A, Poolsup N, Aziz Z. How do Cochrane reviewers address adverse effects of drug therapy? (abstract) 8th Annual Cochrane Colloquium. October 25-29, Cape Town, South Africa (2000).
  • Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA 285, 437–443 (2001).
  • Moher D, Schultz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357, 1191–1194 (2001).
  • Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Improving safety reporting from randomised trials. Drug Safety25, 77–84 (2002).
  • Derry S, Loke YK, Aronson JK. Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing puiblished adverse drug reactions in clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology1,7 (2001).
  • Anello C, O'Neill RT. Does research synthesis have a place in drug regulatory policy? Synopsis of issues: assessment of safety and postmarketing survelillance. Clin. Res. Reg. Affairs 13,13–21 (1996).
  • Brewer T, Colditz GA. Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions: current perspectives and future needs. JAMA 281,824–829 (1999).
  • ••Excellent overview of issues regardingadverse drug reactions.
  • Sills JIM, Tanner A, Milstein JB. Food and Drug Administration monitoring of adverse drug reactions. Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 43, 2764–2770 (1986).
  • The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products: Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use. Common technical document for the registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. EMEA (2000).
  • Hemminki E, McPherson K. Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events and cancer: pooled data from clinical trials. Br. Med. J. 315, 149–153 (1997).
  • Singleton S, Bailey K. Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events and cancer. More women are excluded from treatment arm of such trials because of cardiovascular events. Br. Med. 315,676 (1997).
  • Shah S, Rhodes L. Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events and cancer. Search for studies was limited. Br. Med. J. 315, 676–677 (1997).
  • Seagroatt V Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events and cancer. Paper's main conclusion is no longer justifies when data from all trials are considered. Br. Med. 315,677 (1997).
  • Sundkvist T. Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular eventsand cancer. Combining thromboembolic events with cardiovascular events does not support odds ratio of 0.7. Br. Med. J. 315, 677 (1997).
  • Al-Azzawi F, Thompson J, Halligan A. Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events and cancer. Inclusion of one particular study was inappropriate. Br. Med. J. 315,677–678 (1997).
  • Col NE Wong JB, Pauker SG, Karas R. Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events and cancer. Study's conclusions were incorrect. Br. Med .J. 315,678 (1997).
  • Perkins LL, Clark BD, Klein PJ, Cook RR. A meta-analysis of breast implants and connective tissue disease. Ann. Plastic Surg. 35,561–570 (1995).
  • Austin H, Perkins LL, Martin DO. Estimating a relative risk across sparse case-control and follow-up studies: a method for meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 16,1005-1015 (1997).
  • •Interesting statistical methods paper regarding meta-analysis of adverse events.
  • Landefeld CS, Bey th RJ. Anticoagulant- related bleeding: clinical epidemiology, prediction and prevention. Am. J. Med. 95, 315–328 (1993).
  • Smaill F, Hofmeyr GJ. Antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section. The Cochrane Library: Issue 1, Oxford, UK, Update-Software (2002).
  • Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta- analysis. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2,121–145 (1993).
  • Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Stat. Med 10, 1665–1677 (1991).
  • DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin. Trials 7, 177–188 (1986).
  • Sterne JAC, Egger M, Sutton AJ. Meta- analysis software. In: Systematic Reviews in Healthcare: Meta-analysis in context. 2nd edition. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (Eds). BMJ Books, London, UK (2001).
  • Deeks J, Bradburn M, Localio R, Berlin J. Much ado about nothing: statistical methods for meta-analysis with rare events. Presented at 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics, January 5–7, 1999, Oxford, UK (Abstract available at www.his.ox.ac.uk/csmitalks.html#P23.) 1999.
  • Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 17,841–856 (1998).
  • Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? The use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of rare events. MSc Thesis, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, UK (2001).
  • •In-depth examination of performance of meta-analysis methods for rare events.
  • Thompson SG, Turner RM, Warn DE. Multilevel models for meta-analysis and their application to absolute risk differences. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 10, 375–392 (2001).
  • van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat. Med. 21,589-624 (2002).
  • Van Houwelingen HC, Zwinderman KH, Stijnen T. A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 12,2273–2284 (1993).
  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. Methods in health service research: An introduction to Bayesian methods in health technology assessment. Br. Med.j 319,508–512 (1999).
  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG. WinBUGS Version 1.2. User manual. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK (2000).
  • Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in practice. Chapman and Hall, London, UK (1996).
  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Miles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment. Health Technology Assess. 4(38) (2000).
  • •Excellent overview based on a systematic review of the use of Bayesian methods in health technology assessment.
  • Lee PM. Bayesian statistics: an introduction. Edward Arnold, London, UK (1989).
  • Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 10,277–303 (2001).
  • Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: A comparative study. Stat. Med. 14,2685-2699 (1995).
  • •Describes an 'exact' Bayesian method of meta-analysis on the OR scale.
  • Warn DE, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: Methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat. Med. (In Press, 2002).
  • •Describes 'exact' Bayesian methods of meta-analysis on the RD and RR scales.
  • Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials: current issues and future directions. Int. J. Tech. Assess. Healthcare 12,195–208 (1996).
  • Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials - an annotated- bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clin. Trials 12,62–73 (1995).
  • Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 52,377–384 (1998).
  • Berard A, Bravo G. Combining studies using effect sizes and quality scores: application to bone loss in postmenopausal women. J. Clin. Epidemiol 51,801–807 (1998).
  • Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282,1054–1060 (1999).
  • Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Shachter R. Meta- analysis by the Confidence Profile Method. Academic Press, San Diego, USA (1992).
  • Prevost TC, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Hierarchical models in generalised synthesis of evidence: an example based on studies of breast cancer screening. Stat. Med. 19, 3359–3376 (2000).
  • Li ZH, Begg CB. Random effects models for combining results from controlled and uncontrolled studies in a meta-analysis. Am. Stat. Assoc. 89,1523–1527 (1994).
  • Song F, Easterwood A, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and other selection biases in systematic reviews. Health Technology Assess. 4(10) (2000).
  • Sutton AJ, Song F, Gilbody SM, Abrams KR. Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 9, 421–445 (2000).
  • Smith R. What is publication? A continuum. Br. Med. 318,142 (1999).
  • Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL, Garner P, Flynn EV. Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies. Stat. Med. 19,3325–3336 (2000).
  • Hutton JL, Williamson PR. Bias in meta- analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies. Applied Stat. 49,359–370 (2000).
  • •Describes a method for assessing outcome reporting bias.
  • Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. An evidence based approach to individualizing treatment. Br. Med. 311,1356–1359 (1995).
  • •Outlines a method of weighing benefits and adverse effects of an intervention up in a quantitative framework.
  • Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Lambert PL, Cooper NJ. A Bayesian approach to evaluating net-clinical benefit. Technical Report, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, UK (2002).
  • Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: A practical guide. Med. Decis. Making 13,322–338 (1993).
  • Cooper NJ, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Turner D, Lambert PC. Use of Bayesian methods for markov modelling in cost-effectiveness analysis: an application to taxane use in advanced breast cancer: Technical Report 02–02, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, UK (2002).
  • Deelcs JJ, Altman DG. Effect measures for meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes. In: Systematic nwiews in healthcarv. Meta-analysis in context. 2nd edition Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (Eds) BMJ Publishing Group, London, UK (2001).
  • •Very clear and detailed comparison of the competing outcome measures used for binary data in meta-analysis.
  • Bradburn MJ, peeks JJ, Altman DG. metan - an alternative meta-analysis command. Stata Technical Bulletin STB 44:sbe24,4–15 (1998).
  • Tang JL. Weighting bias in meta-analysis of binary outcomes. j Clin. Epidemiol. 53, 1130–1136 (2000).
  • Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses - sometimes informative, usually misleading. Br. Med. 318,1548–1551 (1999).
  • Sankey SS, Weissfeld LA, Fine MJ, Kapoor W An assessment of the use of the continuity correction for sparse data in metaanalysis. Communications In Statistics-Simulation And Computation 25,1031–1056 (1996).
  • Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, USA (1996).
  • Emerson JD. Combining estimates of the odds ratio: the state of the art. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 3,157–178 (1994).
  • Dashow EE, Read JA, Coleman FH. Randomized comparison of five irrigation solutions at cesarean section. Obstet. Gynecol 68,473–478 (1986).
  • De Boer CN, Thornton JG. Prophylactic short course rectal metronidazole for cesarean section. A double-blind controlled trial of a simple low cost regimen. Int. j Gynecol. Obstet. 28,103–107 (1989).
  • Duff P, Smith PN, Keiser JF. Antibiotic prophylaxis in low-risk cesarean section. j Reprod. Merl 27,133–138 (1982).
  • Jakobi P, Weissman A, Sigler E, Margolis K, Zimmer EZ. Post-cesarean section febrile morbidity. j Reprod. Med. 39,707–710 (1994).
  • Lewis DF, Otterson WN, Dunnihoo DR. Antibiotic prophylactic uterine lavage in cesarean section: a double-blind comparison of saline, ticarcillin, and cefoxitin irrigation in indigent patients. South Med. 83,274–276 (1990).
  • Mahomed K. A double-blind randomized controlled trial on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing elective caesarean section. Br. j Obstet. Gynaecol. 95,689–692 (1988).
  • Rothbard MJ, Mayer W, Wystepek A, Gordon M. Prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section. Obstet. Gynecol 45,421-424 (1975). Websites

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.