Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis

Hardy, Rebecca J., Thompson, Simon G.·1998·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

This paper considers a model for the difference of two proportions in a paired or matched design of clinical trials, case-control studies and also sensitivity comparison studies of two laboratory tests. This model includes a parameter indicating both interpatient variability of response probabilities and their correlation. Under the proposed model, we derive a one-sided test for equivalence based upon the efficient score. Equivalence is defined here as not more than 100 delta per cent inferior. McNemar's test for significance is shown to be a special case of the proposed test. Further, a score-based confidence interval for the difference of two proportions is derived. One of the features of these methods is applicability to the 2 x 2 table with off-diagonal zero cells; all the McNemar type tests and confidence intervals published so far cannot apply to such data. A Monte Carlo simulation study shows that the proposed test has empirical significance levels closer to the nominal alpha-level than the other tests recently proposed and further that the proposed confidence interval has better empirical coverage probability than those of the four published methods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<841::aid-sim781>3.0.co;2-d

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Metadata

Authors
Hardy, R. J., & Thompson, S. G.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Published
1998

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8
The paper
Hardy, R. J., & Thompson, S. G. (1998). Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17%3A8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.