↓ Skip to main content

Meta-analysis of binary outcomes via generalized linear mixed models: a simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Meta-analysis of binary outcomes via generalized linear mixed models: a simulation study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0531-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilyas Bakbergenuly, Elena Kulinskaya

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of binary outcomes are widespread in all areas of application. The odds ratio, in particular, is by far the most popular effect measure. However, the standard meta-analysis of odds ratios using a random-effects model has a number of potential problems. An attractive alternative approach for the meta-analysis of binary outcomes uses a class of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). GLMMs are believed to overcome the problems of the standard random-effects model because they use a correct binomial-normal likelihood. However, this belief is based on theoretical considerations, and no sufficient simulations have assessed the performance of GLMMs in meta-analysis. This gap may be due to the computational complexity of these models and the resulting considerable time requirements. The present study is the first to provide extensive simulations on the performance of four GLMM methods (models with fixed and random study effects and two conditional methods) for meta-analysis of odds ratios in comparison to the standard random effects model. In our simulations, the hypergeometric-normal model provided less biased estimation of the heterogeneity variance than the standard random-effects meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation when the data were sparse, but the REML method performed similarly for the point estimation of the odds ratio, and better for the interval estimation. It is difficult to recommend the use of GLMMs in the practice of meta-analysis. The problem of finding uniformly good methods of the meta-analysis for binary outcomes is still open.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 24%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Mathematics 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,046,708
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#646
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,084
of 328,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#24
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.