Skip to content

[R-meta] Subgroup analysis results are different if I conducted each subgroup separately in metarate in R

2 messages · Mohamed Rahouma, Guido Schwarzer

#
Greetings all
I am doing a single arm meta-analysis of *incidence rate (IR)* using
Poisson regression and doing subgroup analysis using `meta` and `metafor`
packages in `R`.
Upon reviewing subgroup analysis results, I noticed* it is different if I
conducted each subgroup separately.* If there is any possible explanation
for that, it will be greatly appreciated.

Furthermore, I need  to know ***what is the used statistical test to get
the `interaction-P value` or `subgroup difference P value*`** is which is
`0.0432` in the following dataset (in random effect model).

I reviewed this [link][1] but I couldn't get what I need there.


Here is my code and sample dataset
```
library(meta); library(metafor)
data<-read.table(text="studlab Subgroup_2gps Mean.FU popXFU event
DeBonis.2014 Adult 11.5 1552.5 13
Fucci.2007 Adult 6.5 416 4
Ram.2020 Pediatrics 5.583333 290.33333 4
Kadirogullari.2019 Pediatrics 1.616667 90.53333 2
Kashiyama.2014 Pediatrics 3.275 180.125 1
Tomita.2005 Pediatrics 6.708333 134.16667 1
Lawrie.2006 Pediatrics 3.1 291.4 16
Maeda.2019 Pediatrics 5.5 203.5 1
Zussa.1997 Pediatrics 3.05 350.75 2
Murashita.2013 Pediatrics 7.5 562.5 6
David.2013 Pediatrics 10.1 1070.6 30
Bourguignon.2016 Pediatrics 3.4 98.6 3
Phillips.2000 Pediatrics 0.9 66.6 5
Pfannmuller.2013 Pediatrics 4.3 498.8 5
Totaro.1999 Adult 3.833333 199.33333 3
", sep="\t", header=T)


mr <- metarate(event,popXFU, data= data,# subset= data$Subgroup_2gps==
"Neochords " ,
               studlab = studlab, method = "GLMM",model.glmm = "CM.EL",
method.ci = "Poisson",   irscale = 1000)
mr2<- update (mr, byvar=Subgroup_2gps);forest(mr2); mr2

# Results for subgroups (random effects model):
#   k  events             95%-CI  tau^2    tau
# Subgroup_2gps = Adult        3  9.3998 [ 6.0643; 14.5697]      0      0
# Subgroup_2gps = Pediatrics  12 18.6089 [11.3291; 30.5666] 0.4500 0.6708
#
# Test for subgroup differences (random effects model):
#   Q d.f. p-value
# Between groups   4.09    1*  0.0432*

## It gave me IR of 18.6089 [11.3291; 30.5666] for random effect for
Pediatrics subgroup

#============================================================================================
mr <- metarate(event,popXFU, data= data, subset= data$Subgroup_2gps==
"Pediatrics" ,
               studlab = studlab, method = "GLMM",model.glmm = "CM.EL",
method.ci = "Poisson",   irscale = 1000);mr
## It gave me IR of 15.9876 [ 9.5438; 26.7820] for random effect
```
Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.


  [1]:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/340621/why-am-i-getting-different-means-when-conducting-multilevel-meta-analysis-with-f

*Link to my question on* Cross Validated:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/590438/subgroup-analysis-results-are-different-if-i-conducted-each-subgroup-separately

--
Best Regards;
Sincerely
Mohamed Rahouma
<https://www.google.com./url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsincerely.com%2F&ei=neObVayoG4v0-QH0xIrQBg&usg=AFQjCNGzY8IeWvSHsGzJCztf4BSaSxH76g&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cWw>
#
Mohamed,

Using the current CRAN versions from meta and metafor, I get exactly the 
same results in the subgroup meta-analysis and separate meta-analyses 
(see attached R script). Furthermore, results from meta and metafor are 
identical.

The test for subgroup differences checks whether the random effects 
estimates in the two subgroups differ. You could use metagen() or 
rma.uni() to calculate the Q statistic and p-value (see end of attached 
R script).

Best,

Guido

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: metarate02.R
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20220929/8d8f4958/attachment.ksh>