Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2010 Jan;34(1):60-6.
doi: 10.1002/gepi.20435.

Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies: no efficiency gain in using individual participant data

D Y Lin  1 , D Zeng
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies: no efficiency gain in using individual participant data

D Y Lin et al. Genet Epidemiol. 2010 Jan.

Abstract

To identify genetic variants with modest effects on complex human diseases, a growing number of networks or consortia are created for sharing data from multiple genome-wide association studies on the same disease or related disorders. A central question in this enterprise is whether to obtain summary results or individual participant data from relevant studies. We show theoretically and numerically that meta-analysis of summary results is statistically as efficient as joint analysis of individual participant data (provided that both analyses are performed properly under the same modeling assumptions). We illustrate this equivalence with case-control data from the Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) study. Collating only summary results will increase the number and representativeness of available studies, simplify data collection and analysis, reduce resource utilization, and accelerate discovery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Analysis of stages 1 and 2 data from the FUSION study. The top left panel compares the individual estimates of odds ratios between stages 1 and 2; the top right panel compares the combined estimates of odds ratios between meta-analysis and mega-analysis; the bottom left panel compares the standard error estimates between the two methods; and the bottom right panel compares the − log10(p-values) between the two methods. In each panel, the red line indicates where the values on the two axes are equal.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Analysis of stages 1 and 2 data from the FUSION study adjusted for age and sex. The top left panel compares the individual estimates of odds ratios between stages 1 and 2; the top right panel compares the combined estimates of odds ratios between meta-analysis and mega-analysis; the bottom left panel compares the standard error estimates between the two methods; and the bottom right panel compares the − log10(p-values) between the two methods. Both meta-analysis and mega-analysis allow age and sex effects to be different between stages 1 and 2. In each panel, the red line indicates where the values on the two axes are equal.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Analysis of stages 1 and 2 data from the FUSION study adjusted for age and sex. The top left panel compares the individual estimates of odds ratios between stages 1 and 2; the top right panel compares the combined estimates of odds ratios between meta-analysis and mega-analysis; the bottom left panel compares the standard error estimates between the two methods; and the bottom right panel compares the − log10(p-values) between the two methods. Mega-analysis assumes age and sex effects to be the same between stages 1 and 2 whereas meta-analysis does not. In each panel, the red line indicates where the values on the two axes are equal.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Cox DR, Hinkley DV. Theoretical Statistics. Chapman and Hall; 1979.
    1. Kavvoura1 FK, Ioannidis JPA. Methods for meta-analysis in genetic association studies: a review of their potential and pitfalls. Human Genetics. 2008;123:1–14. - PubMed
    1. Lin DY, Zeng D. On the relative efficiency of using summary statistics versus individual level data in meta-analysis. 2009 Unpublished technical report. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Olkin I, Sampson A. Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. Biometrics. 1998;54:317–22. - PubMed
    1. Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, Reich D. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics. 2006;38:904–909. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources