Abstract
A 95% confidence interval (CI) in an updated meta-analysis may not have the expected 95% coverage. If a meta-analysis is simply updated with additional data, then the resulting 95% CI will be wrong because it will not have accounted for the fact that the earlier meta-analysis failed or succeeded to exclude the null. This situation can be avoided by using the likelihood ratio (LR) as a measure of evidence that does not depend on type-1 error. We show how an LR-based approach, first advanced by Goodman, can be used in a meta-analysis to pool data from separate studies to quantitatively assess where the total evidence points. The method works by estimating the log-likelihood ratio (LogLR) function from each study. Those functions are then summed to obtain a combined function, which is then used to retrieve the total effect estimate, and a corresponding 'intrinsic' confidence interval. Using as illustrations the CAPRIE trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in the prevention of ischemic events, and our own meta-analysis of higher potency statins and the risk of acute kidney injury, we show that the LR-based method yields the same point estimate as the traditional analysis, but with an intrinsic confidence interval that is appropriately wider than the traditional 95% CI. The LR-based method can be used to conduct both fixed effect and random effects meta-analyses, it can be applied to old and new meta-analyses alike, and results can be presented in a format that is familiar to a meta-analytic audience.