Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data

Archives of Public Health

Victoria N Nyaga¹  Marc Arbyn¹  Marc Aerts² 

[1] Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Juliette Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050 Brussels, Belgium

[2] Center for Statistics, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building D, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium

关键词: Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation;    Confidence intervals;    Logistic-normal;    Binomial;    Stata;    Meta-analysis;   

Others  :  1083890
DOI  :  10.1186/2049-3258-72-39

 received in 2014-05-05, accepted in 2014-07-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Meta-analyses have become an essential tool in synthesizing evidence on clinical and epidemiological questions derived from a multitude of similar studies assessing the particular issue. Appropriate and accessible statistical software is needed to produce the summary statistic of interest.

Methods

Metaprop is a statistical program implemented to perform meta-analyses of proportions in Stata. It builds further on the existing Stata procedure metan which is typically used to pool effects (risk ratios, odds ratios, differences of risks or means) but which is also used to pool proportions. Metaprop implements procedures which are specific to binomial data and allows computation of exact binomial and score test-based confidence intervals. It provides appropriate methods for dealing with proportions close to or at the margins where the normal approximation procedures often break down, by use of the binomial distribution to model the within-study variability or by allowing Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilize the variances. Metaprop was applied on two published meta-analyses: 1) prevalence of HPV-infection in women with a Pap smear showing ASC-US; 2) cure rate after treatment for cervical precancer using cold coagulation.

Results

The first meta-analysis showed a pooled HPV-prevalence of 43% (95% CI: 38%-48%). In the second meta-analysis, the pooled percentage of cured women was 94% (95% CI: 86%-97%).

Conclusion

By using metaprop, no studies with 0% or 100% proportions were excluded from the meta-analysis. Furthermore, study specific and pooled confidence intervals always were within admissible values, contrary to the original publication, where metan was used.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Nyaga et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Agresti A, Coull BA: Approximate is better than ’exact’ for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 1998, 52(2):119-126.
• [2]Breslow NE, Clayton DG: Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc 1993, 88:9-25.
• [3]Miller JJ: The inverse of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Am Stat 1978, 32(4):138.
• [4]Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T: The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:41-51.
• [5]Molenberghs G, Verbeke G, Iddib S, Demétrio CGB: A combined beta and normal random-effects model for repeated, over-dispersed binary and binomial data. J Multivar Anal 2012, 111:94-109.
• [6]DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986, 7:177-188.
• [7]Engel E, Keen A: A simple approach for the analysis of generalized linear mixed models. Stat Neerl 1994, 48:1-22.
• [8]Molenberghs G, Verbeke G, Demétrio CGB, Vieira AMC: A family of generalized linear models for repeated measures with normal and conjugate random effects. Stat Sci 2010, 3:325-347.
• [9]Jackson D, Bowden J, Baker R: How does the Dersimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts? J Stat Plan Inference 2010, 140:961-970.
• [10]Harris R, Bradburn M, Deeks J, Harbord R, Altman D, Sterne J: metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J 2008, 8(1):3-28.
• [11]Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG: Statistics for experimenters. Hoboken (NJ), USA: J Wiley & Sons Inc, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics; 1978.
• [12]Freeman MF, Tukey JW: Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Stats 1950, 21(4):607-611.
• [13]Clopper CJ, Pearson ES: The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934, 26(4):404-413.
• [14]Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A: Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci 2001, 16:404-413.
• [15]Newcombe RG: Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998, 17:857-872.
• [16]Wilson EB: Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 1927, 22(158):209-212.
• [17]Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Buntinx F, Ranst MV, Paraskevaidis E, Dillner J: Triage of women with equivocal or low-grade cervical cytology results a meta-analysis of the hpv test positivity rate. J Cell Mol Med 2009, 13(4):648-659.
• [18]Dolman L, Sauvaget C, Muwonge R, Sankaranarayanan R: Meta-analysis of the efficacy of cold coagulation as a treatment method for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasis: a systematic review. BJOG 2014, 121:929-942.
• [19]Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJLM, Poljak M, Ogilvie G, Koliopoulos G, Naucler P, Sankaranarayanan R, Petok J: Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 2012, 30(Suppl 5):F88-F99.
• [20]Arbyn M, Roelens J, Simoens C, Buntinx F, Paraskevaidis E, Martin-Hirsch PP, Prendiville WJ: Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 3(CD008054):1-201.
• [21]Westfall PH, Young SS: Resampling-based multiple testing: examples and methods for P-value adjustment. Hoboken (NJ), USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1993.