Ana C Alba1, Paul E Alexander2, Joanne Chang3, John MacIsaac3, Samantha DeFry3, Gordon H Guyatt2. 1. Heart Failure and Transplant Program, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, 585 University Ave, 11c PMB 153, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2N2, Canada. Electronic address: Carolina.alba@uhn.ca. 2. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada. 3. Heart Failure and Transplant Program, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, 585 University Ave, 11c PMB 153, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2N2, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We compared the distribution of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of binary and continuous outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched citations in MEDLINE and Cochrane databases for meta-analyses of randomized trials published in 2012 that reported a measure of heterogeneity of either binary or continuous outcomes. Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening and data abstraction. We evaluated the distribution of I(2) in meta-analyses of binary and continuous outcomes and explored hypotheses explaining the difference in distributions. RESULTS: After full-text screening, we selected 671 meta-analyses evaluating 557 binary and 352 continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity as assessed by I(2) proved higher in continuous than in binary outcomes: the proportion of continuous and binary outcomes reporting an I(2) of 0% was 34% vs. 52%, respectively, and reporting an I(2) of 60-100% was 39% vs. 14%. In continuous but not binary outcomes, I(2) increased with larger number of studies included in a meta-analysis. Increased precision and sample size do not explain the larger I(2) found in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes with a larger number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses evaluating continuous outcomes showed substantially higher I(2) than meta-analyses of binary outcomes. Results suggest differing standards for interpreting I(2) in continuous vs. binary outcomes may be appropriate.
OBJECTIVES: We compared the distribution of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of binary and continuous outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched citations in MEDLINE and Cochrane databases for meta-analyses of randomized trials published in 2012 that reported a measure of heterogeneity of either binary or continuous outcomes. Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening and data abstraction. We evaluated the distribution of I(2) in meta-analyses of binary and continuous outcomes and explored hypotheses explaining the difference in distributions. RESULTS: After full-text screening, we selected 671 meta-analyses evaluating 557 binary and 352 continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity as assessed by I(2) proved higher in continuous than in binary outcomes: the proportion of continuous and binary outcomes reporting an I(2) of 0% was 34% vs. 52%, respectively, and reporting an I(2) of 60-100% was 39% vs. 14%. In continuous but not binary outcomes, I(2) increased with larger number of studies included in a meta-analysis. Increased precision and sample size do not explain the larger I(2) found in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes with a larger number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses evaluating continuous outcomes showed substantially higher I(2) than meta-analyses of binary outcomes. Results suggest differing standards for interpreting I(2) in continuous vs. binary outcomes may be appropriate.
Authors: Ruth Masterson Creber; Arnaldo Dimagli; Cristiano Spadaccio; Annie Myers; Marco Moscarelli; Michelle Demetres; Matthew Little; Stephen Fremes; Mario Gaudino Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2022-05-05
Authors: Marija Barbateskovic; Olav L Schjørring; Sara Russo Krauss; Janus C Jakobsen; Christian S Meyhoff; Rikke M Dahl; Bodil S Rasmussen; Anders Perner; Jørn Wetterslev Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-27
Authors: Widya N Insani; Cate Whittlesea; Hassan Alwafi; Kenneth K C Man; Sarah Chapman; Li Wei Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240