Literature DB >> 20528863

Testing for homogeneity in meta-analysis I. The one-parameter case: standardized mean difference.

Elena Kulinskaya1, Michael B Dollinger, Kirsten Bjørkestøl.   

Abstract

Meta-analysis seeks to combine the results of several experiments in order to improve the accuracy of decisions. It is common to use a test for homogeneity to determine if the results of the several experiments are sufficiently similar to warrant their combination into an overall result. Cochran's Q statistic is frequently used for this homogeneity test. It is often assumed that Q follows a chi-square distribution under the null hypothesis of homogeneity, but it has long been known that this asymptotic distribution for Q is not accurate for moderate sample sizes. Here, we present an expansion for the mean of Q under the null hypothesis that is valid when the effect and the weight for each study depend on a single parameter, but for which neither normality nor independence of the effect and weight estimators is needed. This expansion represents an order O(1/n) correction to the usual chi-square moment in the one-parameter case. We apply the result to the homogeneity test for meta-analyses in which the effects are measured by the standardized mean difference (Cohen's d-statistic). In this situation, we recommend approximating the null distribution of Q by a chi-square distribution with fractional degrees of freedom that are estimated from the data using our expansion for the mean of Q. The resulting homogeneity test is substantially more accurate than the currently used test. We provide a program available at the Paper Information link at the Biometrics website http://www.biometrics.tibs.org for making the necessary calculations.
© 2010, The International Biometric Society.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20528863     DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01442.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  13 in total

1.  A matrix-based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta-analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Sylwia Bujkiewicz; Martin Law; Richard D Riley; Ian R White
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.

Authors:  Rebecca DerSimonian; Nan Laird
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  Effect of methodological and ecological approaches on heterogeneity of nest-site selection of a long-lived vulture.

Authors:  Rubén Moreno-Opo; Mariana Fernández-Olalla; Antoni Margalida; Ángel Arredondo; Francisco Guil
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  An accurate test for homogeneity of odds ratios based on Cochran's Q-statistic.

Authors:  Elena Kulinskaya; Michael B Dollinger
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 5.  Effect of levothyroxine on the progression of carotid intima-media thickness in subclinical hypothyroidism patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tong Zhao; Baomin Chen; Yingying Zhou; Xinyi Wang; Yuanyuan Zhang; Haoyu Wang; Zhongyan Shan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-10-22       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  When should meta-analysis avoid making hidden normality assumptions?

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Ian R White
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 2.207

7.  Do interventions to promote walking in groups increase physical activity? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Aikaterini Kassavou; Andrew Turner; David P French
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 6.457

8.  Approximate confidence intervals for moment-based estimators of the between-study variance in random effects meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Jack Bowden; Rose Baker
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 5.273

9.  Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails?

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Jack Bowden
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Dan Jackson; Wolfgang Viechtbauer; Ralf Bender; Jack Bowden; Guido Knapp; Oliver Kuss; Julian P T Higgins; Dean Langan; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 5.273

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.