The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta‐analysis with zero cells
Abstract
For clinical trials with binary endpoints there are a variety of effect measures, for example risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio (OR). The choice of metric is not always straightforward and should reflect the clinical question. Additional issues arise if the event of interest is rare. In systematic reviews, trials with zero events in both arms are encountered and often excluded from the meta‐analysis. The arcsine difference (AS) is a measure which is rarely considered in the medical literature. It appears to have considerable promise, because it handles zeros naturally, and its asymptotic variance does not depend on the event probability. This paper investigates the pros and cons of using the AS as a measure of intervention effect. We give a pictorial representation of its meaning and explore its properties in relation to other measures. Based on analytical calculation of the variance of the arcsine transformation, a more conservative variance estimate for the rare event setting is proposed. Motivated by a published meta‐analysis in cardiac surgery, we examine the statistical properties of the various metrics in the rare event setting. We find the variance estimate of the AS to be more stable than that of the log‐OR, even if events are rare. However, parameter estimation is biased if the groups are markedly unbalanced. Though, from a theoretical viewpoint, the AS is a natural choice, its practical use is likely to continue to be limited by its less direct interpretation. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes
Nissen, S. E., & Wolski, K. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa072761 · Cited by 4,675
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data
J. Sweeting, M., J. Sutton, A., & C. Lambert, P. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1761 · Cited by 1,734
The transformation of poisson, binomial and negative-binomial data
ANSCOMBE, F. J. (1948) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/35.3-4.246 · Cited by 1,300
Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events
Bradburn, M. J., Deeks, J. J., Berlin, J. A., & Russell Localio, A. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2528 · Cited by 938
A bivariate approach to meta-analysis
Van Houwelingen, H. C., Zwinderman, K. H., & Stijnen, T. (1993) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780122405 · Cited by 327
Warn, D. E., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1189 · Cited by 277
Meta-analysis of rare and adverse event data
Sutton, A. J., Cooper, N. J., Lambert, P. C., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Sweeting, M. J. (2002) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1586/14737167.2.4.367 · Cited by 141
Cited by
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., & on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group (2019) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch10 · Cited by 2,672
Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta‐Analyses
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch9 · Cited by 1,800
Sposato, L. A., Cipriano, L. E., Saposnik, G., Vargas, E. R., Riccio, P. M., & Hachinski, V. (2015) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)70027-x · Cited by 694
Stone, M., Laughren, T., Jones, M. L., Levenson, M., Holland, P. C., Hughes, A., Hammad, T. A., Temple, R., & Rochester, G. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2880 · Cited by 609
Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and beyond
Evangelou, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2013) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3472 · Cited by 596
PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews
Zorzela, L., Loke, Y. K., Ioannidis, J. P., Golder, S., Santaguida, P., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Vohra, S., & PRISMA harms group (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i157 · Cited by 557
Burke, D. L., Ensor, J., & Riley, R. D. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7141 · Cited by 538
Yeh, H.-C., Brown, T. T., Maruthur, N., Ranasinghe, P., Berger, Z., Suh, Y. D., Wilson, L. M., Haberl, E. B., Brick, J., Bass, E. B., et al. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00508 · Cited by 493
Arcsine‐based transformations for meta‐analysis of proportions: Pros, cons, and alternatives
Lin, L., & Xu, C. (2020) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.178 · Cited by 339
Vachon, H., Viechtbauer, W., Rintala, A., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/14475 · Cited by 252
Practical guide to the meta-analysis of rare events
Efthimiou, O. (2018) · Evidence Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/eb-2018-102911 · Cited by 231
Kuss, O. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6383 · Cited by 206
Palmer, S. C., Di Micco, L., Razavian, M., Craig, J. C., Perkovic, V., Pellegrini, F., Copetti, M., Graziano, G., Tognoni, G., Jardine, M., et al. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-6-201203200-00007 · Cited by 204
A proposed framework to guide evidence synthesis practice for meta-analysis with zero-events studies
Xu, C., Furuya-Kanamori, L., Zorzela, L., Lin, L., & Vohra, S. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.012 · Cited by 117
Ju, K., Lin, L., Chu, H., Cheng, L.-L., & Xu, C. (2020) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01035-6 · Cited by 61
Wang, Y.-Y., Ge, Y.-J., Tan, C.-C., Cao, X.-P., Tan, L., & Xu, W. (2021) · Journal of Alzheimer's Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-201606 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Rücker, G., Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J., & Olkin, I.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 721-738
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2077165978
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 9.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
