ArticleJournal of the American Statistical Association2012
Meta-Analysis of Rare Binary Adverse Event Data.
Article in Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Herpes simplex virus 2 and dementia risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Pooled it
- Bayesian estimation and testing in random-effects meta-analysis of rare binary events allowing for flexible group variability.Statistics in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Association of bevacizumab and stroke in ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- Bayesian sparse modeling to identify high-risk subgroups in meta-analysis of safety data.Research synthesis methods · 2022Pooled it
- Applications of simple and accessible methods for meta-analysis involving rare events: A simulation study.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021Pooled it
- Bayesian Methods for Meta-Analyses of Binary Outcomes: Implementations, Examples, and Impact of Priors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of rare adverse events in randomized clinical trials: Bayesian and frequentist methods.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Bayesian Meta-Analysis for Binary Data and Prior Distribution on Models.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Laplace approximation, penalized quasi-likelihood, and adaptive Gauss-Hermite quadrature for generalized linear mixed models: towards meta-analysis of binary outcome with sparse data.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of tuberculosis in Crohn's disease patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (Anti-TNFα).World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- Early major complications after bariatric surgery in the USA, 2003-2014: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2018Pooled it
- Cardiac Harms of Sofosbuvir: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Drug safety · 2018Pooled it
- Adverse effects of non-hormonal pharmacological interventions in breast cancer survivors, suffering from hot flashes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric appendicitis: a systematic review.Pediatric radiology · 2016Pooled it
- The effectiveness and risks of bariatric surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, 2003-2012.JAMA surgery · 2014Pooled it
- The Trial Bank initiative to promote trustworthy living evidence for medication safety (PROMISE) of children: design and pilot validation.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Random-effects meta-analysis models for pooling rare events data: a comparison between frequentist and bayesian methods.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We examine the use of fixed-effects and random-effects moment-based meta-analytic methods for analysis of binary adverse event data. Special attention is paid to the case of rare adverse events which are commonly encountered in routine practice. We study estimation of model parameters and between-study heterogeneity. In addition, we examine traditional approaches to hypothesis testing of the average treatment effect and detection of the heterogeneity of treatment effect across studies. We derive three new methods, simple (unweighted) average treatment effect estimator, a new heterogeneity estimator, and a parametric bootstrapping test for heterogeneity. We then study the statistical properties of both the traditional and new methods via simulation. We find that in general, moment-based estimators of combined treatment effects and heterogeneity are biased and the degree of bias is proportional to the rarity of the event under study. The new methods eliminate much, but not all of this bias. The various estimators and hypothesis testing methods are then compared and contrasted using an example dataset on treatment of stable coronary artery disease.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.