Abstract:<p>Pooling the relative risk (RR) across studies investigating rare events, for example, adverse events, via meta‐analytical methods still presents a challenge to researchers. The main reason for this is the high probability of observing no events in treatment or control group or both, resulting in an undefined log RR (the basis of standard meta‐analysis). Other technical challenges ensue, for example, the violation of normality assumptions, or bias due to exclusion of studies and application of continuity corrections, leading to poor performance of standard approaches. In the present simulation study, we compared three recently proposed alternative models (random‐effects [RE] Poisson regression, RE zero‐inflated Poisson [ZIP] regression, binomial regression) to the standard methods in conjunction with different continuity corrections and to different versions of beta‐binomial regression. Based on our investigation of the models' performance in 162 different simulation settings informed by meta‐analyses from the Cochrane database and distinguished by different underlying true effects, degrees of between‐study heterogeneity, numbers of primary studies, group size ratios, and baseline risks, we recommend the use of the RE Poisson regression model. The beta‐binomial model recommended by Kuss (2015) also performed well. Decent performance was also exhibited by the ZIP models, but they also had considerable convergence issues. We stress that these recommendations are only valid for meta‐analyses with larger numbers of primary studies. All models are applied to data from two Cochrane reviews to illustrate differences between and issues of the models. Limitations as well as practical implications and recommendations are discussed; a flowchart summarizing recommendations is provided.</p>

A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis

Sequential methods for random‐effects meta‐analysis

The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models

Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random‐effects meta‐analysis

Predictive distributions for between‐study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta‐analysis

A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis

Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

A re-evaluation of fixed effect (s) meta-analysis

A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses

Comparison of random‐effects meta‐analysis models for the relative risk in the case of rare events: A simulation study

Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the bayesmeta R package

Comparative performance of heterogeneity variance estimators in meta‐analysis: a review of simulation studies

Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses

Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis—Part 1: Two‐stage methods

Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies

Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta‐regression

Assessing the properties of the prediction interval in random-effects meta-analysis

Frequentist performances of Bayesian prediction intervals for random‐effects meta‐analysis

Statistical Primer: heterogeneity, random- or fixed-effects model analyses?

Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods

How vague is vague? How informative is informative? Reference analysis for Bayesian meta‐analysis