Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Analysing the relationship between treatment effect and underlying risk in meta-analysis: comparison and development
1Medical Data Sciences, Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Greenford Road, Greenford, Middlesex, UB6 0HE, UK.
Abstract:
Three approaches for estimating the relationship between treatment effect and underlying risk in a meta-analysis of clinical trials have recently been published. The aim of each is to overcome the bias inherent in conventional regressions of treatment effect on control group risk, which arises from the measurement error in the observed control group risks in different trials. Here we describe these published approaches, and compare them with respect to their underlying models and methods of implementation. The underlying model for one of them is shown to be seriously flawed, while the other two are both statistically more appropriate than the conventional approaches, and differ from each other in only two assumptions. Both may be implemented using the Gibbs sampling algorithm in BUGS, and are exemplified here using a meta-analysis of mortality and bleeding data in trials of sclerotherapy for patients with cirrhosis. One approach is developed further; for the illustrative example considered, it is shown to be robust to different choices of prior distributions for the model parameters, and to the assumption of a linear relationship on a log-odds scale. It can also be used to estimate the level of underlying risk (and its standard error) at which the treatment effect crosses from benefit to harm, and other trial-level covariates may be included in the model as confounders. The BUGS code is provided in an Appendix, to enable applied researchers to perform the various analyses described.
Related Concept Videos
Regression Toward the Mean
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Relative Risk
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
