Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-Analysis of Proportions

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Meta-Research

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 2345))

Abstract

The meta-analysis of single proportions has become a popular application over the last two decades. Especially, systematic reviews of prevalence studies are conducted in various fields of science, including medicine, ecology, psychology, or social sciences. In this chapter, we illustrate meta-analysis methods to pool single proportions and to compare proportions from two groups. We introduce classic approaches based on the inverse variance method as well as generalized linear mixed models taking the binary structure of the data into account. The most common transformations of proportions and their back-transformations are described both for individual studies and in the meta-analysis setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Borges Migliavaca C, Stein C, Colpani V, Barker TH, Munn Z, Falavigna M (2020) How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study. BMC Med Res Methodol 20(1):96

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K (2014) The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag 3(3):123–128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Meo SA, Sheikh SA, Sattar K, Akram A, Hassan A, Meo AS (2019) Prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus among men in the middle east: a retrospective study. Am J Mens Health 13(3):1557988319848577

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Al Kanaani Z (2018) The epidemiology of hepatitis C virus in Pakistan: systematic review and meta-analyses. R Soc Open Sci 5:180257

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Papazisis G, Siafis S, Tsakiridis I, Koulas I, Dagklis T, Kouvelas D (2018) Prevalence of cannabis use among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Subst Abuse Res Treat 12:117822181880597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T (2013) Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health 67(11):974–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Warton DI, Hui FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92(1):3–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T (2008) The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J Clin Epidemiol 61(1):41–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jaeger TF (2008) Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. J Mem Lang 59(4):434–446

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Stijnen T, Hamza TH, Ozdemir P (2010) Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med 29(29):3046–3067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwarzer G, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad LJ, Rücker G (2019) Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions. Res Synth Methods 10:476–483

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR (2010) A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 1(2):97–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bylsma LC, Gillezeau C, Garawin TA, Kelsh MA, Fryzek JP, Sangaré L (2020) Prevalence of RAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer patients by tumor sidedness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med 9(3):1044–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berkson J (1944) Application of the logistic function to bio-assay. J Am Stat Assoc 39(227):357–365

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gart JJ, Zweifel JR (1967) On the bias of various estimators of the logit and its variance with application to quantal bioassay. Biometrika 54(1/2):181–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Anscombe FJ (1948) The transformation of poisson, binomial and negative-binomial data. Biometrika 35:246–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Freeman MF, Tukey JW (1950) Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Stat 21:607–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Miller JJ (1978) The inverse of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Am Stat 32(4):138

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wilson EB (1927) Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 22(158):209–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Clopper CJ, Pearson ES (1934) The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 26(4):404–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Agresti A, Coull BA (1998) Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 52(2):119–126

    Google Scholar 

  22. Newcombe RG (1998) Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 17(8):857–872

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, Bender R, Bowden J, Knapp G (2016) Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 7:55–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hartung J (1999) An alternative method for meta-analysis. Biom J 41(8):901–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hartung J, Knapp G (2001) A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat Med 20(24):3875–3889

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ (2009) A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 172(1):137–159

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP (2012) Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol 41(3):818–827

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Fleiss J (1993) Review papers : the statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 2(2):121–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22:719–748

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P (1985) Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 27(5):335–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Greenland S, Robins JM (1985) Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 41(1):55–68

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Greenland S, Salvan A (1990) Bias in the one-step method for pooling study results. Stat Med 9(3):247–252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brockhaus AC, Bender R, Skipka G (2014) The Peto odds ratio viewed as a new effect measure. Stat Med 33(28):4861–4874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Russell Localio A (2007) Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med 26(1):53–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Brockhaus AC, Grouven U, Bender R (2016) Performance of the Peto odds ratio compared to the usual odds ratio estimator in the case of rare events. Biom J 58(6):1428–1444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Emerson JD (1994) Combining estimates of the odds ratio: the state of the art. Stat Methods Med Res 3(2):157–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 22:153–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA (2001) A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 20(19):2865–2884

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten RJPM, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58(10):982–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Guido Schwarzer & Gerta Rücker

Authors
  1. Guido Schwarzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerta Rücker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Schwarzer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology University of Ioannina Medical School, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Imperial College London London, UK, Ioannina, Greece

    Evangelos Evangelou

  2. Knowledge Translation Program Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Department of Surgery and Cancer Faculty of Medicine Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology Imperial College London, UK ISSN, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Areti Angeliki Veroniki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

Schwarzer, G., Rücker, G. (2022). Meta-Analysis of Proportions. In: Evangelou, E., Veroniki, A.A. (eds) Meta-Research. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2345. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-1565-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-1566-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation