PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16097340

Parametric and nonparametric bootstrap methods for meta-analysis.

Abstract

In a meta-analysis, the unknown parameters are often estimated using maximum likelihood, and inferences are based on asymptotic theory. It is assumed that, conditional on study characteristics included in the model, the between-study distribution and the sampling distributions of the effect sizes are normal. In practice, however, samples are finite, and the normality assumption may be violated, possibly resulting in biased estimates and inappropriate standard errors. In this article, we propose two parametric and two nonparametric bootstrap methods that can be used to adjust the results of maximum likelihood estimation in meta-analysis and illustrate them with empirical data. A simulation study, with raw data drawn from normal distributions, reveals that the parametric bootstrap methods and one of the nonparametric methods are generally superior to the ordinary maximum likelihood approach but suffer from a bias/precision tradeoff. We recommend using one of these bootstrap methods, but without applying the bias correction.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wim Van Den Noortgate, Patrick Onghena. 2005. Parametric and nonparametric bootstrap methods for meta-analysis.. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206394

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias.

In the case in which all subjects are screened using a common test and only a subset of these subjects are tested using a golden standard test, it is well documented that there is a risk for bias, called verification bias. When the test has only two levels (e.g. positive and negative) and we are trying to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the test, we are actually constructing a confidence interval for a binomial proportion. Since it is well documented that this estimation is not trivial even with complete data, we adopt multiple imputation framework for verification bias problem. We propose several imputation procedures for this problem and compare different methods of estimation. We show that our imputation methods are better than the existing methods with regard to nominal coverage and confidence interval length.

Bias↗

Rater bias in a blinded randomized placebo-controlled psychiatry trial.

Rater bias occurs when rater knowledge of treatment assignment modifies the outcome assessment. Raters may be unconsciously influenced by inclinations for or against a particular treatment and consequently may give a more or less generous assessment depending upon these biases. Blinding of raters by keeping raters unaware of treatment assignment is one way to limit bias influencing assessment due to knowledge of treatment assignment. Unblinding may be particularly problematic in efficacy studies comparing placebo to drugs and/or non-drug psychotherapy treatments where subjects may reveal drug side-effects or mention their therapist by name, thus unblinding their treatment assignment. We present a new instrumental variable statistical approach for assessing the association between success in blinding and its impact on efficacy estimates of active drug and/or cognitive behavioural psychotherapy versus placebo in the multicentre comparative treatment study of panic disorder. Despite the uncertainty involved in assessing bias that may be unobserved and unconscious, we will show how to derive a bound for the impact of rater bias.

Bias↗