A re‐analysis of about 60,000 sparse data meta‐analyses suggests that using an adequate method for pooling matters

Abstract

In sparse data meta‐analyses (with few trials or zero events), conventional methods may distort results. Although better‐performing one‐stage methods have become available in recent years, their implementation remains limited in practice. This study examines the impact of using conventional methods compared to one‐stage models by re‐analysing meta‐analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in scenarios with zero event trials and few trials. For each scenario, we computed one‐stage methods (Generalised linear mixed model [GLMM], Beta‐binomial model [BBM], Bayesian binomial‐normal hierarchical model using a weakly informative prior [BNHM‐WIP]) and compared them with conventional methods (Peto‐Odds‐ratio [PETO], DerSimonian‐Laird method [DL] for zero event trials; DL, Paule‐Mandel [PM], Restricted maximum likelihood [REML] method for few trials). While all methods showed similar treatment effect estimates, substantial variability in statistical precision emerged. Conventional methods generally resulted in smaller confidence intervals (CIs) compared to one‐stage models in the zero event situation. In the few trials scenario, the CI lengths were widest for the BBM on average and significance often changed compared to the PM and REML, despite the relatively wide CIs of the latter. In agreement with simulations and guidelines for meta‐analyses with zero event trials, our results suggest that one‐stage models are preferable. The best model can be either selected based on the data situation or, using a method that can be used in various situations. In the few trial situation, using BBM and additionally PM or REML for sensitivity analyses appears reasonable when conservative results are desired. Overall, our results encourage careful method selection.