A brief note on the random-effects meta-analysis model and its relationship to other models

被引:13
作者
McKenzie, Joanne E. [1 ]
Veroniki, Areti Angeliki [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Methods Evidence Synth Unit, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[2] St Michaels Hosp, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Inst, Knowledge Translat Program, Unity Hlth Toronto, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Inst Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, 155 Coll St, Toronto, ON, Canada
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Meta-analysis; Random-effects; Common-effect; Fixed-effects; Statistical heterogeneity; Clinical and methodological diversity; REEVALUATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111492
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining quantitative results across studies. A fundamental decision in undertaking a metaanalysis is choosing an appropriate model for analysis. This is the second of two companion articles which have the joint aim of describing the different meta-analysis models. In the first article, we focused on the common-effect (also known as fixed-effect [singular]) model, and in this article, we focus on the random-effects model. We describe the key assumptions underlying the random-effects model, how it is related to the common-effect and fixed-effects [plural] models, and present some of the arguments for selecting one model over another. We outline some of the methods for fitting a random-effects model. Finally, we present an illustrative example to demonstrate how the results can differ depending on the chosen model and method. Understanding the assumptions of the different meta-analysis models, and the questions they address, is critical for meta-analysis model selection and interpretation. (c) 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Avoiding common mistakes in meta-analysis: Understanding the distinct roles of Q, I-squared, tau-squared, and the prediction interval in reporting heterogeneity [J].
Borenstein, Michael .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2024, 15 (02) :354-368
[2]   Evaluating medical tests: introducing the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy [J].
Bossuyt, Patrick M. ;
Deeks, Jonathan J. ;
Leeflang, Mariska M. ;
Takwoingi, Yemisi ;
Flemyng, Ella .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, (07)
[3]   Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis [J].
Davey, Jonathan ;
Turner, Rebecca M. ;
Clarke, Mike J. ;
Higgins, Julian P. T. .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2011, 11
[4]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[5]   A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome [J].
Hartung, J ;
Knapp, G .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (24) :3875-3889
[6]   Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis [J].
Hedges, LV ;
Vevea, JL .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 1998, 3 (04) :486-504
[7]   Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias [J].
Henmi, Masayuki ;
Copas, John B. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2010, 29 (29) :2969-2983
[8]   A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis [J].
Higgins, Julian P. T. ;
Thompson, Simon G. ;
Spiegelhalter, David J. .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 2009, 172 :137-159
[9]   A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses [J].
Langan, Dean ;
Higgins, Julian P. T. ;
Jackson, Dan ;
Bowden, Jack ;
Veroniki, Areti Angeliki ;
Kontopantelis, Evangelos ;
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang ;
Simmonds, Mark .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2019, 10 (01) :83-98
[10]   CONSENSUS VALUES AND WEIGHTING FACTORS [J].
PAULE, RC ;
MANDEL, J .
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, 1982, 87 (05) :377-385