A comparison of statistical methods for combining relative bioactivities from parallel line bioassays

Jointly pooling aggregated effect sizes and their standard errors from studies with continuous clinical outcomes

The DerSimonian-Laird (DL) weighted average method for aggregated data meta-analysis has been widely used for the estimation of overall effect sizes. It is criticized for its underestimation of the standard error of the overall effect size in the presence of heterogeneous effect sizes. Due to this negative property, many alternative estimation approaches have been proposed in the literature. One of the earliest alternative approaches was developed by Hardy and Thompson (HT), who implemented a profile likelihood instead of the moment-based approach of DL. Others have further extended this likelihood approach and proposed higher-order likelihood inferences (e.g., Bartlett-type corrections). In addition, corrections factors for the estimated DL standard error, like the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) adjustment, and the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation have been suggested too. Although these improvements address the uncertainty in estimating the between-study variance better than the DL method, they all assume that the true within-study standard errors are known and equal to the observed standard errors of the effect sizes. Here, we will treat the observed standard errors as estimators for the within-study variability and we propose a bivariate likelihood approach that jointly estimates the overall effect size, the between-study variance, and the potentially heteroskedastic within-study variances. We study the performance of the proposed method by means of simulation, and compare it to DL (with and without HKSJ), HT, their higher-order likelihood methods, and REML. Our proposed approach seems to have better or similar coverages compared to the other approaches and it appears to be less biased in the case of heteroskedastic within-study variances when this heteroskedasticty is correlated with the effect size.

Latent variable models for harmonization of test scores: A case study on memory

Combining data from different studies has a long tradition within the scientific community. It requires that the same information is collected from each study to be able to pool individual data. When studies have implemented different methods or used different instruments (e.g., questionnaires) for measuring the same characteristics or constructs, the observed variables need to be harmonized in some way to obtain equivalent content information across studies. This paper formulates the main concepts for harmonizing test scores from different observational studies in terms of latent variable models. The concepts are formulated in terms of calibration, invariance, and exchangeability. Although similar ideas are present in measurement reliability and test equating, harmonization is different from measurement invariance and generalizes test equating. In addition, if a test score needs to be transformed to another test score, harmonization of variables is only possible under specific conditions. Observed test scores that connect all of the different studies, are necessary to be able to test the underlying assumptions of harmonization. The concepts of harmonization are illustrated on multiple memory test scores from three different Canadian studies.