Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative.

@article{Poole1999RandomeffectsMA,
  title={Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative.},
  author={C. Poole and Sander Greenland},
  journal={American journal of epidemiology},
  year={1999},
  volume={150 5},
  pages={469-75}
}
It is widely held that random-effects summary effect estimates are more conservative than fixed-effects summaries in epidemiologic meta-analysis. This view is based on the fact that random-effects summaries have higher estimated variances and, consequently, wider confidence intervals than fixed-effects summaries when there is evidence of appreciable heterogeneity among the results from the individual studies. In such instances, however, the random-effects point estimates are not invariably… CONTINUE READING
Recent Discussions
This paper has been referenced on Twitter 4 times over the past 90 days. VIEW TWEETS

From This Paper

Figures, tables, and topics from this paper.

Citations

Publications citing this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 126 extracted citations

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 55 references

Dr . Shapiro replies . ( Letter )

  • S Shapiro
  • Am J Epidemiol
  • 1995

Dr. Greenland replies. (Letter)

  • S. Greenland
  • Am J Epidemiol
  • 1995
2 Excerpts

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…