.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Zero-cell corrections in random-effects meta-analyses
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1002/jrsm.1460.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
The standard estimator for the log odds ratio (the unconditional maximum likelihood estimator) and the delta-method estimator for its standard error are not defined if the corresponding 2 x 2 table contains at least one zero cell. This is also an issue when estimating the overall log odds ratio in a meta-analysis. It is well known that correcting for zero cells by adding a small increment should be avoided. Nevertheless, these zero-cell corrections continue to be used. With this Brief Method Note, we want to warn of a particularly bad zero-cell correction. For this, we conduct a simulation study comparing the following two zero-cell corrections under the ordinary random-effects model: (a) adding 12 to all cells of all the individual studies' 2 x 2 tables independently of any zero-cell occurrences and (b) adding 12 to all cells of only those 2 x 2 tables containing at least one zero cell. The main finding is that correction (a) performs worse than correction (b). Thus, we strongly discourage the use of correction (a).
Keywords:
binary
continuity correction
meta‐ analysis
random effects
zero‐ cell correction
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
IF:
6.1
Papers:
826
Citations:
8.7K