Measuring the impact of zero-cases studies in evidence synthesis practice using the harms index and benefits index (Hi-Bi)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In evidence synthesis practice, dealing with studies with no cases in both arms has been a tough problem, for which there is no consensus in the research community. In this study, we propose a method to measure the potential impact of studies with no cases for meta-analysis results which we define as harms index (Hi) and benefits index (Bi) as an alternative solution for deciding how to deal with such studies. METHODS: Hi and Bi are defined by the minimal number of cases added to the treatment arm (Hi) or control arm (Bi) of studies with no cases in a meta-analysis that lead to a change of the direction of the estimates or its statistical significance. Both exact and approximating methods are available to calculate Hi and Bi. We developed the "hibi" module in Stata so that researchers can easily implement the method. A real-world investigation of meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews was employed to evaluate the proposed method. RESULTS: Based on Hi and Bi, our results suggested that 21.53% (Hi) to 26.55% (Bi) of Cochrane meta-analyses may be potentially impacted by studies with no cases, for which studies with no cases could not be excluded from the synthesis. The approximating method shows excellent specificity (100%) for both Hi and Bi, moderate sensitivity (68.25%) for Bi, and high sensitivity (80.61%) for Hi compared to the exact method. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method is practical and useful for systematic reviewers to measure whether studies with no cases impact the results of meta-analyses and may act as an alternative solution for review authors to decide whether to include studies with no events for the synthesis or not.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.548 | 0.799 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".