Literature DB >> 34550583

Fixed- and Random-Effects Models.

Steve Kanters1,2.   

Abstract

Deciding whether to use a fixed-effect model or a random-effects model is a primary decision an analyst must make when combining the results from multiple studies through meta-analysis. Both modeling approaches estimate a single effect size of interest. The fixed-effect meta-analysis assumes that all studies share a single common effect and, as a result, all of the variance in observed effect sizes is attributable to sampling error. The random-effects meta-analysis estimates the mean of a distribution of effects, thus assuming that study effect sizes vary from one study to the next. Under this model, variance in observed effect sizes is attributable to both sampling error (within-study variance) and statistical heterogeneity (between-study variance).The most popular meta-analyses involve using a weighted average to combine the study-level effect sizes. Both fixed- and random-effects models use an inverse-variance weight (variance of the observed effect size). However, given the shared between-study variance used in the random-effects model, it leads to a more balanced distribution of weights than under the fixed-effect model (i.e., small studies are given more relative weight and large studies less). The standard error for these estimators also relates to the inverse-variance weights. As such, the standard errors and confidence intervals for the random-effects model are larger and wider than in the fixed-effect analysis. Indeed, in the presence of statistical heterogeneity, fixed-effect models can lead to overly narrow intervals.In addition to commonly used, generalizable models, there are additional fixed-effect models and random-effect models that can be considered. Additional fixed-effect models that are specific to dichotomous data are more robust to issues that arise from sparse data. Furthermore, random-effects models can be expanded upon using generalized linear mixed models so that different covariance structures are used to distribute statistical heterogeneity across multiple parameters. Finally, both fixed- and random-effects modeling can be conducted using a Bayesian framework.
© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian statistics; Fixed-effect; Heterogeneity; Inverse-variance; Meta-analysis; Random-effects

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34550583     DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  13 in total

1.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease.

Authors:  N MANTEL; W HAENSZEL
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1959-04       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Misunderstandings about Q and 'Cochran's Q test' in meta-analysis.

Authors:  David C Hoaglin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events.

Authors:  Michael J Bradburn; Jonathan J Deeks; Jesse A Berlin; A Russell Localio
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century.

Authors:  A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  A bivariate approach to meta-analysis.

Authors:  H C Van Houwelingen; K H Zwinderman; T Stijnen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.

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

7.  Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis.

Authors:  Jonathan Davey; Rebecca M Turner; Mike J Clarke; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  A general framework for the use of logistic regression models in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mark C Simmonds; Julian Pt Higgins
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.021

9.  A comparison of seven random-effects models for meta-analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Martin Law; Theo Stijnen; Wolfgang Viechtbauer; Ian R White
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; David J Spiegelhalter
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.483

View more
  2 in total

1.  Addition of Capecitabine to Adjuvant Chemotherapy May be the Most Effective Strategy for Patients With Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of 9 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Zhiyang Li; Jiehua Zheng; Zeqi Ji; Lingzhi Chen; Jinyao Wu; Juan Zou; Yiyuan Liu; Weixun Lin; Jiehui Cai; Yaokun Chen; Yexi Chen; Hai Lu
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 6.055

Review 2.  Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Cheng Chen; Mengyang Shi; Zhongli Liao; Weiqing Chen; Yongzhong Wu; Xu Tian
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 6.337

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.