ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2018
An integrative shrinkage estimator for random-effects meta-analysis of rare binary events.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Meta-analysis has been a powerful tool for inferring the treatment effect between two experimental conditions from multiple studies of rare binary events. Recently, under a random-effects (RE) model, Bhaumik et al. developed a simple average (SA) estimator and showed that with the continuity correction factor 0.5, the SA estimator was the least biased among a set of commonly used estimators. In this paper, under various RE models that allow for treatment groups with equal and unequal variability (in either direction), we develop an integrative shrinkage (iSHRI) estimator based on the SA estimator, which aims to improve estimation efficiency in terms of mean squared error (MSE) that accounts for the bias-variance tradeoff. Through simulation, we find that iSHRI has better performance in general when compared with existing methods, in terms of bias, MSE, type I error and confidence interval coverage. Data examples of rosiglitazone meta-analysis are provided as well, where iSHRI yields competitive results.
Indexed as
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.