Action disabled: revisions

tips:computing_adjusted_effects

After fitting a random-effects model and finding heterogeneity in the effects, meta-analysts often want to examine whether one or multiple moderator variables (i.e., predictors) are able to account for the heterogeneity (or at least part of it). Meta-regression models can be used for this purpose. A question that frequently arises in this context is how to compute an 'adjusted effect' based on such a model. This tutorial describes how to compute such adjusted effects for meta-regression models involving continuous and categorical moderators.

I will use the BCG vaccine (against tuberculosis) dataset for this tutorial. We start by computing the log risk ratios and corresponding sampling variances for the 13 trials included in this dataset.

dat <- dat.bcg dat <- escalc(measure="RR", ai=tpos, bi=tneg, ci=cpos, di=cneg, data=dat, slab=paste0(dat$author, ", ", dat$year)) dat

trial author year tpos tneg cpos cneg ablat alloc yi vi 1 1 Aronson 1948 4 119 11 128 44 random -0.8893 0.3256 2 2 Ferguson & Simes 1949 6 300 29 274 55 random -1.5854 0.1946 3 3 Rosenthal et al 1960 3 228 11 209 42 random -1.3481 0.4154 4 4 Hart & Sutherland 1977 62 13536 248 12619 52 random -1.4416 0.0200 5 5 Frimodt-Moller et al 1973 33 5036 47 5761 13 alternate -0.2175 0.0512 6 6 Stein & Aronson 1953 180 1361 372 1079 44 alternate -0.7861 0.0069 7 7 Vandiviere et al 1973 8 2537 10 619 19 random -1.6209 0.2230 8 8 TPT Madras 1980 505 87886 499 87892 13 random 0.0120 0.0040 9 9 Coetzee & Berjak 1968 29 7470 45 7232 27 random -0.4694 0.0564 10 10 Rosenthal et al 1961 17 1699 65 1600 42 systematic -1.3713 0.0730 11 11 Comstock et al 1974 186 50448 141 27197 18 systematic -0.3394 0.0124 12 12 Comstock & Webster 1969 5 2493 3 2338 33 systematic 0.4459 0.5325 13 13 Comstock et al 1976 27 16886 29 17825 33 systematic -0.0173 0.0714

The `yi`

values are the observed log risk ratios and variable `vi`

contains the corresponding sampling variances.

To estimate the average log risk ratio, we fit a random-effects model to these data.

res <- rma(yi, vi, data=dat) res

Random-Effects Model (k = 13; tau^2 estimator: REML) tau^2 (estimated amount of total heterogeneity): 0.3132 (SE = 0.1664) tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 0.5597 I^2 (total heterogeneity / total variability): 92.22% H^2 (total variability / sampling variability): 12.86 Test for Heterogeneity: Q(df = 12) = 152.2330, p-val < .0001 Model Results: estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub -0.7145 0.1798 -3.9744 <.0001 -1.0669 -0.3622 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

To make the results easier to interpret, we can exponentiate the estimated average log risk ratio (i.e., $-0.7145$) to obtain an estimate of the average risk ratio. This can be done with the `predict()`

function as follows.

predict(res, transf=exp, digits=2)

pred ci.lb ci.ub pi.lb pi.ub 0.49 0.34 0.70 0.15 1.55

Hence, the estimated average risk ratio is $0.49$ (95% CI: $0.35$ to $0.70$). In other words, the data suggest that the vaccine reduces the risk of a tuberculosis infection by about 50% on average (or the risk in vaccinated groups is on average about half of the risk of non-vaccinated groups).

We can draw a forest plot that shows the results of the individual studies and the estimate based on the random-effects model at the bottom (the polygon shape with the center corresponding to the estimate and the ends corresponding to the confidence interval bounds).

forest(res, xlim=c(-6.8,3.8), header=TRUE, atransf=exp, at=log(c(1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8)), digits=c(2L,4L))

Variable `ablat`

in the dataset gives the absolute latitude of the study locations. The distance from the equator of the study sites may be a relevant moderator of the effectiveness of the vaccine (Bates, 1982; Colditz et al., 1994; Ginsberg, 1998). So let's fit a meta-regression model that includes this variable as a predictor.

res <- rma(yi, vi, mods = ~ ablat, data=dat) res

Mixed-Effects Model (k = 13; tau^2 estimator: REML) tau^2 (estimated amount of residual heterogeneity): 0.0764 (SE = 0.0591) tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 0.2763 I^2 (residual heterogeneity / unaccounted variability): 68.39% H^2 (unaccounted variability / sampling variability): 3.16 R^2 (amount of heterogeneity accounted for): 75.62% Test for Residual Heterogeneity: QE(df = 11) = 30.7331, p-val = 0.0012 Test of Moderators (coefficient 2): QM(df = 1) = 16.3571, p-val < .0001 Model Results: estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt 0.2515 0.2491 1.0095 0.3127 -0.2368 0.7397 ablat -0.0291 0.0072 -4.0444 <.0001 -0.0432 -0.0150 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

The results indeed suggest that the size of the average log risk ratio depends on absolute latitude.

In such a meta-regression model, there is no longer **the** average effect, so if we want to estimate the size of the effect, we have to specify a value for `ablat`

. One possibility is to estimate the average risk ratio based on the average absolute latitude of the 13 trials included in the meta-analysis. We can do this as follows.

predict(res, newmods = mean(dat$ablat), transf=exp, digits=2)

pred ci.lb ci.ub pi.lb pi.ub 0.49 0.39 0.60 0.27 0.87

Hence, at about 33.5 degrees absolute latitude (see `mean(dat$ablat)`

), the estimated average risk ratio is $0.49$ (95% CI: $0.39$ to $0.60$). There is no guarantee that this predicted value will be equal to the value obtained from the random-effects model, although it often won't be too dissimilar. However, if the moderator is able to account for at least some of the heterogeneity in the effects, then the confidence interval should be narrower. We see this happening in this example (note that about 75% of the heterogeneity is accounted for by this moderator). Although one can debate the terminology, some might call this predicted effect an 'adjusted effect' based on the meta-regression model.

Note that if you draw a forest plot for a meta-regression model, the predicted/fitted effects corresponding to the values of the moderator of the included studies will be indicated in the plot as gray-shaded polygons.

forest(res, xlim=c(-6.8,3.8), header=TRUE, atransf=exp, at=log(c(1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8)), digits=c(2L,4L), ilab=dat$ablat, ilab.xpos=-3.5, order=dat$ablat, ylim=c(-1.5,15)) text(-3.5, 15, "Lattitude", font=2) abline(h=0) sav <- predict(res, newmods = mean(dat$ablat)) addpoly(sav$pred, sei=sav$se, atransf=exp, digits=2, mlab="Adjusted Effect")

In the forest plot, the values of the moderator are added as an extra column and the studies are ordered based on their absolute latitude value to make this clearer. Some extra space was also added to the forest plot to add the 'adjusted effect' at the bottom.

Next, let's see how this works when the moderator variable of interest is categorical. For this, we will use variable `alloc`

, which indicates the way participants were allocated to the vaccinated versus the control group (with levels `random`

, `alternate`

, and `systematic`

).

res <- rma(yi, vi, mods = ~ alloc, data=dat) res

Mixed-Effects Model (k = 13; tau^2 estimator: REML) tau^2 (estimated amount of residual heterogeneity): 0.3615 (SE = 0.2111) tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 0.6013 I^2 (residual heterogeneity / unaccounted variability): 88.77% H^2 (unaccounted variability / sampling variability): 8.91 R^2 (amount of heterogeneity accounted for): 0.00% Test for Residual Heterogeneity: QE(df = 10) = 132.3676, p-val < .0001 Test of Moderators (coefficients 2:3): QM(df = 2) = 1.7675, p-val = 0.4132 Model Results: estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt -0.5180 0.4412 -1.1740 0.2404 -1.3827 0.3468 allocrandom -0.4478 0.5158 -0.8682 0.3853 -1.4588 0.5632 allocsystematic 0.0890 0.5600 0.1590 0.8737 -1.0086 1.1867 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

The intercept reflects the estimated average log risk ratio for level `alternate`

(the reference level), while the other two coefficients estimate how much the average log risk ratios for levels `random`

and `systematic`

differ from the reference level. Note that the omnibus test of these two coefficients is not significant ($Q_M = 1.77, df = 2, p = .41$), which indicates that there is insufficient evidence that the average log risk ratio actually differs across the three levels. However, for illustration purposes, we'll proceed with our analysis of this moderator.

First, we can compute the estimated average risk ratios for the three levels with:

predict(res, newmods = c(0,0), transf=exp, digits=2) predict(res, newmods = c(1,0), transf=exp, digits=2) predict(res, newmods = c(0,1), transf=exp, digits=2)

pred ci.lb ci.ub pi.lb pi.ub 1 0.60 0.25 1.41 0.14 2.57 2 0.38 0.23 0.64 0.10 1.38 3 0.65 0.33 1.28 0.17 2.53

Note: The output above was obtained with `predict(res, newmods = rbind(c(0,0), c(1,0), c(0,1)), transf=exp, digits=2)`

, which provides the three estimates in a single line of code. However, the code above is a bit easier to read and shows how we need to set the two dummy variables (that are created for the `random`

and `systematic`

levels) to 0 or 1 to obtain the estimates for the three levels.

But what should we do if we want to compute an 'adjusted effect' again? In other words, what values should we plug into our model equation (and hence into `newmods`

) to obtain such an estimate? One common approach is to use the mean of the respective dummy variables. We can obtain these values from the 'model matrix' and taking means across columns (leaving out the intercept).

colMeans(model.matrix(res))[-1]

allocrandom allocsystematic 0.5384615 0.3076923

Using these means for `newmods`

then yields the 'adjusted estimate'.

predict(res, newmods = colMeans(model.matrix(res))[-1], transf=exp, digits=2)

pred ci.lb ci.ub pi.lb pi.ub 0.48 0.33 0.70 0.14 1.66

Again, this estimate is very close to the one obtained from the random-effects model. Also, since this moderator does not actually account for any heterogeneity, the confidence interval is essentially the same width as the one from the random-effects model.

What do these column means above actually represent? They are in fact proportions and indicate that 53.8% of the trials used random allocation (i.e., 7 out of the 13), 30.8% used systematic allocation (i.e., 4 out of the 13), and hence 15.4% used alternating allocation (i.e., 2 out of the 13). The predicted effect computed above is therefore an estimate for a population of studies where the relative frequencies of the different allocation methods are like those observed in the 13 trials included in the meta-analysis.

But we are not restricted to setting the proportions in this way. Another common approach is to assume that the population to which we want to generalize includes studies where each allocation method is used equally often. For a three-level factor, we then need to set the values for the two dummy variables to 1/3. This yields:

predict(res, newmods = c(1/3,1/3), transf=exp, digits=2)

pred ci.lb ci.ub pi.lb pi.ub 0.53 0.35 0.79 0.15 1.84

We can also consider a model that includes a mix of continuous and categorical moderators.

res <- rma(yi, vi, mods = ~ ablat + alloc, data=dat) res

Mixed-Effects Model (k = 13; tau^2 estimator: REML) tau^2 (estimated amount of residual heterogeneity): 0.1446 (SE = 0.1124) tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 0.3803 I^2 (residual heterogeneity / unaccounted variability): 70.11% H^2 (unaccounted variability / sampling variability): 3.35 R^2 (amount of heterogeneity accounted for): 53.84% Test for Residual Heterogeneity: QE(df = 9) = 26.2034, p-val = 0.0019 Test of Moderators (coefficients 2:4): QM(df = 3) = 11.0605, p-val = 0.0114 Model Results: estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt 0.2932 0.4050 0.7239 0.4691 -0.5006 1.0870 ablat -0.0273 0.0092 -2.9650 0.0030 -0.0453 -0.0092 ** allocrandom -0.2675 0.3504 -0.7633 0.4453 -0.9543 0.4193 allocsystematic 0.0585 0.3795 0.1540 0.8776 -0.6854 0.8023 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

The same idea as described above can again be applied to obtain an 'adjusted effect', but now adjusted for both moderators. Again, we just need to compute column means over the model matrix and use this for `newmods`

.

predict(res, newmods = colMeans(model.matrix(res))[-1], transf=exp, digits=2)

pred ci.lb ci.ub pi.lb pi.ub 0.47 0.36 0.62 0.22 1.05

Some may scoff at the idea of computing such an 'adjusted effect', questioning its usefulness and interpretability. I'll leave this discussion for another day. However, the method above is nothing different than what is used to compute so-called 'marginal means' (or 'least squares means', although that term is a bit outdated).

Bates, J. H. (1982). Tuberculosis: Susceptibility and resistance. *American Review of Respiratory Disease, 125*(3 Pt 2), 20-24.

Colditz, G. A., Brewer, T. F., Berkey, C. S., Wilson, M. E., Burdick, E., Fineberg, H. V., & Mosteller, F. (1994). Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis: Meta-analysis of the published literature. *Journal of the American Medical Association, 271*(9), 698-702.

Ginsberg, A. M. (1998). The tuberculosis epidemic: Scientific challenges and opportunities. *Public Health Reports, 113*(2), 128-136.

tips/computing_adjusted_effects.txt · Last modified: 2021/03/29 19:35 by Wolfgang Viechtbauer

Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International