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

@article{Noma2011ConfidenceIF,
  title={Confidence intervals for a random‐effects meta‐analysis based on Bartlett‐type corrections},
  author={Hisashi Noma},
  journal={Statistics in Medicine},
  year={2011},
  volume={30}
}
  • H. Noma
  • Published 10 December 2011
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics in Medicine
In medical meta‐analysis, the DerSimonian‐Laird confidence interval for the average treatment effect has been widely adopted in practice. However, it is well known that its coverage probability (the probability that the interval actually includes the true value) can be substantially below the target level. One particular reason is that the validity of the confidence interval depends on the assumption that the number of synthesized studies is sufficiently large. In typical medical meta‐analyses… 

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.

Exact inference on the random‐effects model for meta‐analyses with few studies

An exact, unconditional, non-randomized procedure for producing confidence intervals for the grand mean in a normal-normal random effects meta-analysis of meta-analyses investigating the effect of calcium intake on bone mineral density is described.

Frequentist performances of Bayesian prediction intervals for random‐effects meta‐analysis

It was found that frequentist coverage performances strongly depended on what prior distributions were adopted, and when the number of studies was smaller than 10, there were no prior distributions that retained accurate frequentist Coverage properties.

Bartlett‐type corrections and bootstrap adjustments of likelihood‐based inference methods for network meta‐analysis

Improved inference methods for network meta-analyses adopting Monte Carlo approaches using parametric bootstraps to effectively circumvent complicated analytical calculations of case-by-case analyses and to permit flexible application to various statistical models network meta -analyses are developed.

Improving the Accuracy of Confidence Intervals and Regions in Multivariate Random-effects Meta-analysis

Multivariate random-effects meta-analyses have been widely applied in evidence synthesis for various types of medical studies. However, standard inference methods usually underestimate statistical

A unified method for improved inference in random effects meta-analysis.

This article provides a unified inference method based on Monte Carlo conditioning for broad application to random effects meta-analysis and provides improved confidence intervals with coverage probabilities that are closer to the nominal level than standard methods.

A Unified Method for Accurate Inference in Random-effects Meta-analysis

A unified inference method based on the Monte Carlo conditioning method for broad application to random-effects meta-analysis is provided, which provides accurate confidence intervals with coverage probabilities that are almost the same as the nominal level.

Permutation inference methods for multivariate meta‐analysis

This article provides permutation‐based inference methods that enable exact joint inferences for average outcome measures without large sample approximations and proposes effective approaches for permutation inferences using optimal weighting based on the efficient score statistic.

Interval estimation of the overall treatment effect in random‐effects meta‐analyses: Recommendations from a simulation study comparing frequentist, Bayesian, and bootstrap methods

The general recommendation of the Hartung-Knapp/Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method is confirmed, and the Bayesian interval using a weakly informative prior for the heterogeneity may help.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 42 REFERENCES

Confidence intervals for random effects meta‐analysis and robustness to publication bias

A new confidence interval is proposed that has better coverage than the DerSimonian-Laird method, and that is less sensitive to publication bias, and is centred on a fixed effects estimate, but allow for heterogeneity by including an assessment of the extra uncertainty induced by the random effects setting.

A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects.

It is concluded that likelihood based methods are preferred to the standard method in undertaking random effects meta-analysis when the value of sigma B2 has an important effect on the overall estimated treatment effect.

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.

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 simple confidence interval for meta‐analysis

This paper discusses an alternative simple approach for constructing the confidence interval, based on the t-distribution, which has improved coverage probability and is easy to calculate, and unlike some methods suggested in the statistical literature, no iterative computation is required.

A simple method for inference on an overall effect in meta‐analysis

A new approach is proposed, which is simple to use, and has coverage probabilities better than the alternatives, based on extensive simulation, and is called the ‘quantile approximation’ method.

Improved small sample inference in the mixed linear model: Bartlett correction and adjusted likelihood

The Bartlett correction substantially improves the accuracy of the type I error rates with either the conventional or the adjusted LR test, and error rates that are very close to nominal are achieved with the refined methods.

A re-evaluation of the ‘quantile approximation method’ for random effects meta-analysis

It is shown that altering the study parameters, and in particular introducing changes to the distribution of the within-study variances, can have a dramatic impact on the resulting quantiles.