Which is Better for Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of Zero-Inflated Count Outcomes, One-Step or Two-Step Analysis? A Simulation Study

Abstract

Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) is an important methodology in intervention research because it (a) increases accuracy and precision of estimates, (b) allows researchers to investigate mediators and moderators of treatment effects, and (c) makes use of extant data. IPD meta-analysis can be conducted either via a one-step approach that uses data from all studies simultaneously, or a two-step approach, which aggregates data for each study and then combines them in a traditional meta-analysis model. Unfortunately, there are no evidence-based guidelines for how best to approach IPD meta-analysis for count outcomes with many zeroes, such as alcohol use. We used simulation to compare the performance of four hurdle models (3 one-step and 1 two-step models) for zero-inflated count IPD, under realistic data conditions. Overall, all models yielded adequate coverage and bias for the treatment effect in the count portion of the model, across all data conditions. However, in the zero portion, the treatment effect was underestimated in most models and data conditions, especially when there were fewer studies. The performance of both one- and two-step approaches depended on the formulation of the treatment effects, suggesting a need to carefully consider model assumptions and specifications when using IPD.