SynthesisStatistical methods in medical research2021
Applications of simple and accessible methods for meta-analysis involving rare events: A simulation study.
Synthesis in Statistical methods in medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Oral or parenteral iron supplementation to reduce deferral, iron deficiency and/or anaemia in blood donors.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the effect of potassium-competitive acid blockers on nighttime symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of statins on non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol in people with diabetes and at risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Pooled it
- Value and Credibility of Meta-Analysis: Tutorial on Enhancing Methodological Rigor and AI-Powered Efficiency.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Biologic Therapies and Major Cardiovascular Events in Psoriasis: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Review
- Analysis of rare events in healthcare intervention using department of defense data: intravenous immune globulin therapy for bullous pemphigoid.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Integrating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions to assess the effect of rare events: a Bayesian re-analysis of two meta-analyses.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Methods for the Inclusion of Real-World Evidence in a Rare Events Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Meta-analysis of clinical trials targeting rare events face particular challenges when the data lack adequate number of events and are susceptible to high levels of heterogeneity. The standard meta-analysis methods (DerSimonian Laird (DL) and Mantel-Haenszel (MH)) often lead to serious distortions because of such data sparsity. Applications of the methods suited to specific incidence and heterogeneity characteristics are lacking, thus we compared nine available methods in a simulation study. We generated 360 meta-analysis scenarios where each considered different incidences, sample sizes, between-study variance (heterogeneity) and treatment allocation. We include globally recommended methods such as inverse-variance fixed/random-effect (IV-FE/RE), classical-MH, MH-FE, MH-DL, Peto, Peto-DL and the two extensions for MH bootstrapped-DL (bDL) and Peto-bDL. Performance was assessed on mean bias, mean error, coverage and power. In the absence of heterogeneity, the coverage and power when combined revealed small differences in meta-analysis involving rare and very rare events. The Peto-bDL method performed best, but only in smaller sample sizes involving rare events. For medium-to-larger sample sizes, MH-bDL was preferred. For meta-analysis involving very rare events, Peto-bDL was the best performing method which was sustained across all sample sizes. However, in meta-analysis with 20% or more heterogeneity, the coverage and power were insufficient. Performance based on mean bias and mean error was almost identical across methods. To conclude, in meta-analysis of rare binary outcomes, our results suggest that Peto-bDL is better in both rare and very rare event settings in meta-analysis with limited sample sizes. However, when heterogeneity is large, the coverage and power to detect rare events are insufficient. Whilst this study shows that some of the less studied methods appear to have good properties under sparse data scenarios, further work is needed to assess them against the more complex distributional-based methods to understand their overall performances.
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.