Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model.

@article{Doi2015AdvancesIT,
  title={Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model.},
  author={Suhail A. R. Doi and Jan J. Barendregt and Shahjahan Khan and Lukman Thalib and Gail M. Williams},
  journal={Contemporary clinical trials},
  year={2015},
  volume={45 Pt A},
  pages={
          130-8
        }
}

Figures and Tables from this paper

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.

Overconfident results with the bivariate random effects model for meta‐analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies are a fundamental component of evidence-based medicine, and they are extensively used in medical imaging and the clinical laboratory. Techniques

A confidence interval robust to publication bias for random‐effects meta‐analysis of few studies

A variation of the method by Henmi and Copas employing an improved estimator of the between-study heterogeneity, in particular when dealing with few studies only is proposed, and it is found that the method outperforms the others in terms of coverage probabilities.

Meta-analysis in evidence-based healthcare: a paradigm shift away from random effects is overdue

It is argued for an urgent return to the earlier framework with updates that address problems with the random-effects approach and demonstrated that there exist better estimators under the fixed-effect model framework that can achieve optimal error estimation.

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

Evidence based decision and meta-analysis with applications in cancer research studies

This paper covers several estimators of the common effect size and some of their major impacts in meta-analysis through redistribution of weights to the individual studies.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 39 REFERENCES

Random-Effects Meta-analysis of Inconsistent Effects: A Time for Change

The decision to calculate a summary estimate in a meta-analysis should be based on clinical judgment, the number of studies, and the degree of variation among studies, as well as on a random-effects model that incorporates study-to-study variability beyond what would be expected by chance.

A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis

It is suggested that random-effects meta-analyses as currently conducted often fail to provide the key results, and the extent to which distribution-free, classical and Bayesian approaches can provide satisfactory methods is investigated.

A comparison of statistical methods for meta‐analysis

It is shown that the commonly used DerSimonian and Laird method does not adequately reflect the error associated with parameter estimation, especially when the number of studies is small, and three methods currently used for estimation within the framework of a random effects model are considered.

Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta‐analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation

  • L. Kriston
  • Psychology
    International journal of methods in psychiatric research
  • 2013
Re‐analysis of published data including calculation of a prediction interval, heterogeneity tests, Bayesian meta‐analysis, meta‐regression, and subgroup analysis is used to explore and interpret summary estimates in clinically heterogeneous studies.

Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.

There are 2 families of statistical procedures in meta-analysis: fixed- and randomeffects procedures. They were developed for somewhat different inference goals: making inferences about the effect

Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results.

Findings suggest that the precision of meta-analysis findings in the literature has often been substantially overstated, with important consequences for research and practice.

Confidence intervals for a random‐effects meta‐analysis based on Bartlett‐type corrections

  • H. Noma
  • Mathematics
    Statistics in medicine
  • 2011
Three confidence intervals for improving coverage properties are developed, based on (i) the Bartlett corrected likelihood ratio statistic, (ii) the efficient score statistic, and (iii) thebartlett-type adjusted efficient Score statistic, which demonstrate better coverage properties than the existing methods.