A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses

  title={A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses},
  author={Dean Langan and Julian P. T. Higgins and Dan Jackson and Jack Bowden and Areti Angeliki Veroniki and Evangelos Kontopantelis and Wolfgang Viechtbauer and Mark Simmonds},
  journal={Research Synthesis Methods},
  pages={83 - 98}
Studies combined in a meta‐analysis often have differences in their design and conduct that can lead to heterogeneous results. A random‐effects model accounts for these differences in the underlying study effects, which includes a heterogeneity variance parameter. The DerSimonian‐Laird method is often used to estimate the heterogeneity variance, but simulation studies have found the method can be biased and other methods are available. This paper compares the properties of nine different… 

Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random‐effects meta‐analysis

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of available methods for calculating point estimates, confidence intervals, and prediction intervals for the overall effect size under the random‐effects model, and indicates whether some methods are preferable than others by considering the results of comparative simulation and real‐life data studies.

A penalization approach to random‐effects meta‐analysis

Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are principal tools to synthesize evidence from multiple independent sources in many research fields. The assessment of heterogeneity among collected studies is a

Heterogeneity estimates in a biased world

Meta-analyses typically quantify heterogeneity of results, thus providing information about the consistency of the investigated effect across studies. Numerous heterogeneity estimators have been

Evaluation of various estimators for standardized mean difference in meta‐analysis

This article comprehensively reviews and evaluates available methods for synthesizing SMDs and finds that because of the intrinsic association between point estimates and standard errors, the usual version of Hedges' g can result in more biased meta-estimation than Cohen's d.

Methods for estimating between‐study variance and overall effect in meta‐analysis of odds ratios

Results of the simulations show that no single point estimator of τ2 can be recommended exclusively, but Mandel-Paule and KD provide better choices for small and large K, respectively.

Selecting the best meta-analytic estimator for evidence-based practice: a simulation study.

A simulation study was conducted to compare estimator performance and demonstrates that the IVhet and quality effects estimators, though biased, have the lowest mean squared error.

Estimation in meta‐analyses of mean difference and standardized mean difference

Improved effect‐measure‐specific approximations to the expected value of Q for both MD and SMD are used to introduce two new methods of point estimation of τ 2 for MD and standardized MD and one WT interval method for SMD.

On ratio measures of heterogeneity for meta‐analyses

This paper considers variants of the CV that exist in the interval .0; 1] which may be preferable for some researchers and provides interval estimators for the CV and its variants with excellent coverage properties, and recommends confidence intervals using the propagating imprecision method.

Assessing Heterogeneity in Random-Effects Meta-analysis.

Methods to estimate the heterogeneity variance parameter in a random-effects model are considered, in more detail what this parameter represents and how the possible explanations for heterogeneity can be explored through statistical methods are considered.

A Bayesian approach to assessing small‐study effects in meta‐analysis of a binary outcome with controlled false positive rate

A Bayesian approach to assessing small-study effects in meta-analyses of ORs, which controls false positive rates by using latent "true" SEs, rather than sampleSEs, in the Egger-type regression to avoid the intrinsic association between ORs and their SEs.



Comparative performance of heterogeneity variance estimators in meta‐analysis: a review of simulation studies

The Paule-Mandel method was recommended by three studies: it is simple to implement, is less biased than DerSimonian and Laird and performs well in meta-analyses with dichotomous and continuous outcomes.

An empirical comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in 12 894 meta‐analyses

It is suggested that using a single estimate of heterogeneity may lead to non-robust results in some meta-analyses, and researchers should consider using alternatives to the DerSimonian and Laird method.

Avoiding zero between‐study variance estimates in random‐effects meta‐analysis

Bayes modal estimation performs well by avoiding boundary estimates; having smaller root mean squared error for the between-study standard deviation; and having better coverage for the overall effects than the other methods when the true model has at least a small or moderate amount of unexplained heterogeneity.

A comparison of seven random‐effects models for meta‐analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio

It is concluded that generalised linear mixed models can result in better statistical inference than the conventional 2‐stage approach but also that this type of model presents issues and difficulties.

Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis†

The aim is to identify known methods for estimation of the between‐study variance and its corresponding uncertainty, and to summarise the simulation and empirical evidence that compares them and recommend the Q‐profile method and the alternative approach based on a ‘generalised Cochran between‐ study variance statistic’.

A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies

The two estimators MVvc and EB are found to be the most accurate in general, particularly when the heterogeneity variance is moderate to large, particularly during the period when the number of studies is large.

On random-effects meta-analysis.

The asymptotic properties of the meta-analysis estimator and the joint maximum likelihood estimator when the number of studies is either fixed or increases at a slower rate than the study sizes are established and a surprising result is discovered: the former estimator is always at least as efficient as the latter.

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis

It is concluded that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity, and one or both should be presented in publishedMeta-an analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.

Estimation of between-trial variance in sequential meta-analyses: a simulation study.

Simple heterogeneity variance estimation for meta‐analysis

Summary.  A simple method of estimating the heterogeneity variance in a random‐effects model for meta‐analysis is proposed. The estimator that is presented is simple and easy to calculate and has