Literature DB >> 16955539

A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies.

Kurex Sidik1, Jeffrey N Jonkman.   

Abstract

For random effects meta-analysis, seven different estimators of the heterogeneity variance are compared and assessed using a simulation study. The seven estimators are the variance component type estimator (VC), the method of moments estimator (MM), the maximum likelihood estimator (ML), the restricted maximum likelihood estimator (REML), the empirical Bayes estimator (EB), the model error variance type estimator (MV), and a variation of the MV estimator (MVvc). The performance of the estimators is compared in terms of both bias and mean squared error, using Monte Carlo simulation. The results show that the REML and especially the ML and MM estimators are not accurate, having large biases unless the true heterogeneity variance is small. The VC estimator tends to overestimate the heterogeneity variance in general, but is quite accurate when the number of studies is large. The MV estimator is not a good estimator when the heterogeneity variance is small to moderate, but it is reasonably accurate when the heterogeneity variance is large. The MVvc estimator is an improved estimator compared to the MV estimator, especially for small to moderate values of the heterogeneity variance. The two estimators MVvc and EB are found to be the most accurate in general, particularly when the heterogeneity variance is moderate to large.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 16955539     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2688

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  68 in total

Review 1.  Strategies for quantifying the relationship between medications and suicidal behaviour: what has been learned?

Authors:  Robert D Gibbons; J John Mann
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Methods to increase reproducibility in differential gene expression via meta-analysis.

Authors:  Timothy E Sweeney; Winston A Haynes; Francesco Vallania; John P Ioannidis; Purvesh Khatri
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  Efficient network meta-analysis: a confidence distribution approach.

Authors:  Guang Yang; Dungang Liu; Regina Y Liu; Minge Xie; David C Hoaglin
Journal:  Stat Methodol       Date:  2014-09-01

4.  Statistical models for meta-analysis: A brief tutorial.

Authors:  George A Kelley; Kristi S Kelley
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2012-08-26

5.  A framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes.

Authors:  Thomas Pa Debray; Johanna Aag Damen; Richard D Riley; Kym Snell; Johannes B Reitsma; Lotty Hooft; Gary S Collins; Karel Gm Moons
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Exploring the Influence of Alcohol Industry Funding in Observational Studies on Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Health.

Authors:  Moniek Vos; Annick P M van Soest; Tim van Wingerden; Marion L Janse; Rick M Dijk; Rutger J Brouwer; Iris de Koning; Edith J M Feskens; Aafje Sierksma
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 8.701

7.  Meta-Analysis of Rare Binary Adverse Event Data.

Authors:  Dulal K Bhaumik; Anup Amatya; Sharon-Lise Normand; Joel Greenhouse; Eloise Kaizar; Brian Neelon; Robert D Gibbons
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 8.  Post-approval drug safety surveillance.

Authors:  Robert D Gibbons; Anup K Amatya; C Hendricks Brown; Kwan Hur; Sue M Marcus; Dulal K Bhaumik; J John Mann
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 21.981

9.  Meta-analysis approaches to combine multiple gene set enrichment studies.

Authors:  Wentao Lu; Xinlei Wang; Xiaowei Zhan; Adi Gazdar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses.

Authors:  Jørn Wetterslev; Kristian Thorlund; Jesper Brok; Christian Gluud
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.