ArticleScientific reports2023
Goodness-of-fit testing for meta-analysis of rare binary events.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Random-effects (RE) meta-analysis is a crucial approach for combining results from multiple independent studies that exhibit heterogeneity. Recently, two frequentist goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests were proposed to assess the fit of RE model. However, they tend to perform poorly when assessing rare binary events. Under a general binomial-normal framework, we propose a novel GOF test for the meta-analysis of rare events. Our method is based on pivotal quantities that play an important role in Bayesian model assessment. It further adopts the Cauchy combination idea proposed in a 2019 JASA paper, to combine dependent p-values computed using posterior samples from Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The advantages of our method include clear conception and interpretation, incorporation of all data including double zeros without the need for artificial correction, well-controlled Type I error, and generally improved ability in detecting model misfits compared to previous GOF methods. We illustrate the proposed method via simulation and three real data applications.
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.