Bayesian Meta-Analysis to Account for Heterogeneity in Studies Relating Life Events to Disease

Associations between life events and various forms of cancers have been identified. The purpose of a recent random-effects meta-analysis was to identify studies that examined the association between adverse events associated with changes to financial status including decreased income and breast cancer risk. The same association was studied in four separate studies which displayed traits that were not consistent between studies such as the study design, location, and time frame. It was of interest to pool information from various studies to help identify characteristics that differentiated study results. Two random-effects Bayesian meta-analysis models are proposed to combine the reported estimates of the described studies. The proposed models allow major sources of variation to be taken into account, including study level characteristics, between study variance and within study variance, and illustrate the ease with which uncertainty can be incorporated using a hierarchical Bayesian modelling approach.

A Sequential Approach to Random-Effects Meta-Analysis

The objective of meta-analysis is to combine results from several independent studies in order to create generalization and provide evidence base for decision making. But recent studies show that the magnitude of effect size estimates reported in many areas of research significantly changed over time and this can impair the results and conclusions of meta-analysis. A number of sequential methods have been proposed for monitoring the effect size estimates in meta-analysis. However they are based on statistical theory applicable only to fixed effect model (FEM) of meta-analysis. For random-effects model (REM), the analysis incorporates the heterogeneity variance, τ 2 and its estimation create complications. In this paper we study the use of a truncated CUSUM-type test with asymptotically valid critical values for sequential monitoring in REM. Simulation results show that the test does not control the Type I error well, and is not recommended. Further work required to derive an appropriate test in this important area of applications.