ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Copas-Heckman-Type Sensitivity Analysis for Publication Bias in Rare-Event Meta-Analysis Under Generalized Linear Mixed Models.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, publication bias (PB) is one of the serious concerns and mainly induced by selective publication of academic literatures. Although many methods have been proposed to address PB, almost all of them are based on the normal-normal (NN) random-effects model, assuming that data are normally distributed at both the within-study and between-study levels. For rare-event meta-analysis where data contain rare occurrences of events, the standard NN random-effects model may perform poorly. Instead, some generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) which employ the exact distribution for the number of events at the within-study level increase the estimation accuracy and have been widely used in practice. However, limited methods can be applied to address PB in the GLMMs. To address this limitation, we propose a framework of sensitivity analysis for evaluating the impact of PB in the contrast-based GLMMs. The proposed framework is developed based on the famous Copas-Heckman-type sensitivity analysis methods by relating study-specific true effect sizes with the latent Gaussian variable on the study sample sizes for adjusting PB. The proposed methods completely avoid the need for continuity corrections and can be easily implemented using standard software with low computational cost. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of the proposed methods in adjusting PB and compare the results with related existing methods. Several real-world examples are also analyzed to show the broad applicability of our proposal in evaluating the potential impact of PB in meta-analysis of odds ratios and proportions with rare-event outcomes.
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.