Literature DB >> 26688589

On random-effects meta-analysis.

D Zeng1, D Y Lin1.   

Abstract

Meta-analysis is widely used to compare and combine the results of multiple independent studies. To account for between-study heterogeneity, investigators often employ random-effects models, under which the effect sizes of interest are assumed to follow a normal distribution. It is common to estimate the mean effect size by a weighted linear combination of study-specific estimators, with the weight for each study being inversely proportional to the sum of the variance of the effect-size estimator and the estimated variance component of the random-effects distribution. Because the estimator of the variance component involved in the weights is random and correlated with study-specific effect-size estimators, the commonly adopted asymptotic normal approximation to the meta-analysis estimator is grossly inaccurate unless the number of studies is large. When individual participant data are available, one can also estimate the mean effect size by maximizing the joint likelihood. We establish the asymptotic properties of the meta-analysis estimator and the joint maximum likelihood estimator when the number of studies is either fixed or increases at a slower rate than the study sizes and we discover a surprising result: the former estimator is always at least as efficient as the latter. We also develop a novel resampling technique that improves the accuracy of statistical inference. We demonstrate the benefits of the proposed inference procedures using simulated and empirical data.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clustered data; Evidence-based medicine; Genetic association; Heterogeneity; Individual patient data; Maximum likelihood estimation; Random-effects model; Research synthesis; Summary statistic

Year:  2015        PMID: 26688589      PMCID: PMC4681410          DOI: 10.1093/biomet/asv011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrika        ISSN: 0006-3444            Impact factor:   2.445


  21 in total

1.  A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis.

Authors:  S E Brockwell; I R Gordon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.

Authors:  Masayuki Henmi; John B Copas
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta-analyses.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Ian R White; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  A framework for interpreting genome-wide association studies of psychiatric disorders.

Authors: 
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2008-11-11       Impact factor: 15.992

Review 5.  Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges.

Authors:  Mark I McCarthy; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Lon R Cardon; David B Goldstein; Julian Little; John P A Ioannidis; Joel N Hirschhorn
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 53.242

6.  Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis.

Authors:  B J Biggerstaff; R L Tweedie
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  On the relative efficiency of using summary statistics versus individual-level data in meta-analysis.

Authors:  D Y Lin; D Zeng
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 2.445

8.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

9.  A method of moments estimator for random effect multivariate meta-analysis.

Authors:  Han Chen; Alisa K Manning; Josée Dupuis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  NONPARAMETRIC INFERENCE PROCEDURE FOR PERCENTILES OF THE RANDOM EFFECTS DISTRIBUTION IN META-ANALYSIS.

Authors:  Rui Wang; Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai; L J Wei
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.083

View more
  13 in total

1.  Exact inference on the random-effects model for meta-analyses with few studies.

Authors:  Haben Michael; Suzanne Thornton; Minge Xie; Lu Tian
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-04-13       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  On recurrent-event win ratio.

Authors:  Lu Mao; KyungMann Kim; Yi Li
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.494

3.  Prognostic and Clinicopathological Significance of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1α in Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ping Zhu; Longxia Shen; Qiuxia Ren; Qingxiang Zeng; Xiaocui He
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  A CD-based mapping method for combining multiple related parameters from heterogeneous intervention trials.

Authors:  Yang Jiao; Eun-Young Mun; Thomas A Trikalinos; Minge Xie
Journal:  Stat Interface       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 0.582

5.  On meta- and mega-analyses for gene-environment interactions.

Authors:  Jing Huang; Yulun Liu; Steve Vitale; Trevor M Penning; Alexander S Whitehead; Ian A Blair; Anil Vachani; Margie L Clapper; Joshua E Muscat; Philip Lazarus; Paul Scheet; Jason H Moore; Yong Chen
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 2.135

6.  An Adaptive Association Test for Multiple Phenotypes with GWAS Summary Statistics.

Authors:  Junghi Kim; Yun Bai; Wei Pan
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 2.135

7.  Evaluation of various estimators for standardized mean difference in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin; Ariel M Aloe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 8.  Pioglitazone use in patients with diabetes and risk of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Huaqing Yan; Haiyun Xie; Yufan Ying; Jiangfeng Li; Xiao Wang; Xin Xu; Xiangyi Zheng
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 9.  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

10.  Median bias reduction in random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Authors:  Sophia Kyriakou; Ioannis Kosmidis; Nicola Sartori
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.021

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.