ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
Modeling the Role of Baseline Risk and Additional Study-Level Covariates in Meta-Analysis of Treatment Effects.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Modeling the Role of Baseline Risk and Additional Study-Level Covariates in Meta-Analysis of Treatment Effects.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relationship between the treatment effect and the baseline risk is a recognized tool to investigate the heterogeneity of treatment effects in meta-analyses of clinical trials. Since the baseline risk is difficult to measure, a proxy is adopted, which is based on the rate of events for the subject under the control condition. The use of the proxy in terms of aggregated information at the study level implies that the data are affected by measurement errors, a problem that the literature has explored and addressed in recent years. This paper proposes an extension of the classical meta-analysis with baseline risk information, which includes additional study-specific covariates other than the rate of events to explain heterogeneity. Likelihood-based inference is carried out by including measurement error correction techniques necessary to prevent unreliable inference due to the measurement errors affecting the covariates summarized at the study level. Within-study covariances between risk measures and the covariate components are computed using Taylor expansions based on study-level covariate subgroup summary information. When such information is not available and, more generally, in order to reduce computational difficulties, a pseudo-likelihood solution is developed under a working independence assumption between the observed error-prone measures. The performance of the methods is investigated in a series of simulation studies under different specifications for the sample size, the between-study heterogeneity, and the underlying risk distribution. They are applied to a meta-analysis about the association between COVID-19 and schizophrenia.
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.