Laplace approximation, penalized quasi-likelihood, and adaptive Gauss–Hermite quadrature for generalized linear mixed models: towards meta-analysis of binary outcome with sparse data
Tóm tắt
In meta-analyses of a binary outcome, double zero events in some studies cause a critical methodology problem. The generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) has been proposed as a valid statistical tool for pooling such data. Three parameter estimation methods, including the Laplace approximation (LA), penalized quasi-likelihood (PQL) and adaptive Gauss–Hermite quadrature (AGHQ) were frequently used in the GLMM. However, the performance of GLMM via these estimation methods is unclear in meta-analysis with zero events. A simulation study was conducted to compare the performance. We fitted five random-effects GLMMs and estimated the results through the LA, PQL and AGHQ methods, respectively. Each scenario conducted 20,000 simulation iterations. The data from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were collected to form the simulation settings. The estimation methods were compared in terms of the convergence rate, bias, mean square error, and coverage probability. Our results suggested that when the total events were insufficient in either of the arms, the GLMMs did not show good point estimation to pool studies of rare events. The AGHQ method did not show better properties than the LA estimation in terms of convergence rate, bias, coverage, and possibility to produce very large odds ratios. In addition, although the PQL had some advantages, it was not the preferred option due to its low convergence rate in some situations, and the suboptimal point and variance estimation compared to the LA. The GLMM is an alternative for meta-analysis of rare events and is especially useful in the presence of zero-events studies, while at least 10 total events in both arms is recommended when employing GLMM for meta-analysis. The penalized quasi-likelihood and adaptive Gauss–Hermite quadrature are not superior to the Laplace approximation for rare events and thus they are not recommended.
Tài liệu tham khảo
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177.
Doi SAD, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, Thalib L, Williams GM. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45(Pt A):130–8.
Bhaumik DK, Amatya A, Normand SL, Greenhouse J, Kaizar E, Neelon B, Gibbons RD. Meta-analysis of rare binary adverse event data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107(498):555–67.
Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter J, Olkin I. Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta-analysis with zero cells. Stat Med. 2009;28(5):721–38.
Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Russell Localio A. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med. 2010;26(1):53–77.
Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med. 2004;23(9):1351–75.
Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomised trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985;27(5):335–71.
Simmonds MC, Higgins JP. A general framework for the use of logistic regression models in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(6):2858–77.
Kuss O. Statistical methods for meta-analyses including information from studies without any events-add nothing to nothing and succeed nevertheless. Stat Med. 2015;34(7):1097–116.
Xie MG, Kolassa J, Liu DG, et al. Does an observed zero-total-event study contain information for inference of odds ratio in meta-analysis? Stat Interface. 2018;11:327–37.
Xu C, Li L, Lin L, et al. Exclusion of studies with no events in both arms in meta-analysis impacted the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol 2020. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.020.
Stijnen T, Hamza TH, Ozdemir P. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med. 2010;29(29):3046–67.
Yu-Kang T. Use of generalized linear mixed models for network meta-analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34:911–8.
Seide SE, Röver C, Friede T. Likelihood-based random-effects meta-analysis with few studies: empirical and simulation studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):16.
Jackson D, Law M, Stijnen T, et al. A comparison of seven random-effects models for meta-analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio. Stat Med. 2018;37(7):1059–85.
King G, Zeng L. Logistic regression in rare events data. Polit Anal. 2001;9(2):137–63.
Benedetti A, Platt R, Atherton J. Generalized linear mixed models for binary data: are matching results from penalized quasi-likelihood and numerical integration less biased? PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e84601.
Wedderburn RWM. Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized linear models, and the gauss—Newton method. Biometrika. 1973;61(3):439–47.
Breslow NE, Clayton DG. Approximate Inference in Generalized Linear Mixed Models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88(421):9–25.
Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24(3):127–35.
Thomas D, Platt R, Benedetti A. A comparison of analytic approaches for individual patient data meta-analyses with binary outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):28.
Pateras K, Nikolakopoulos S, Roes K. Data-generating models of dichotomous outcomes: heterogeneity in simulation studies for a random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2018;37(7):1115–24.
Ren Y, Lin L, Lian Q, et al. Real-world performance of meta-analysis methods for double-zero-event studies with dichotomous outcomes using the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04925-8.
Lin L, Chu H, Murad MH, et al. Empirical comparison of publication Bias tests in meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(8):1260–7.
Wynants L, Bouwmeester W, Moons KG, et al. A simulation study of sample size demonstrated the importance of the number of events per variable to develop prediction models in clustered data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1406–14.
Bates D, Ma M, Bolker B, et al. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67(1):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Rizopoulos D. Generalized Linear Mixed Models using Adaptive Gaussian Quadrature. 2019. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/GLMMadaptive/GLMMadaptive.pdf. Accessed in 2019 Aug-15.
Morris TM, White IR, Crowther MJ. Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods. Stat Med. 2019;38:2074–102.
Puhr R, Heinze G, Nold M, Lusa L, Geroldinger A. Firth's logistic regression with rare events: accurate effect estimates and predictions? Stat Med. 2017;36(14):2302–17.