The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews
Abstract
What causes heterogeneity in systematic reviews of controlled trials? First, it may be an artefact of the summary measures used, of study design features such as duration of follow‐up or the reliability of outcome measures. Second, it may be due to real variation in the treatment effect and hence provides the opportunity to identify factors that may modify the impact of treatment. These factors may include features of the population such as: severity of illness, age and gender; intervention factors such as dose, timing or duration of treatment; and comparator factors such as the control group treatment or the co‐interventions in both groups. The ideal way to study causes of true variation is within rather than between studies. In most situations however, we will have to make do with a study level investigation and hence need to be careful about adjusting for potential confounding by artefactual factors such as study design features. Such investigation of artefactual and true causes of heterogeneity form essential steps in moving from a combined effect estimate to application to particular populations and individuals. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis of Data from Epidemiologic Studies: A Commentary
Colditz, G. A., Burdick, E., & Mosteller, F. (1995) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117644 · Cited by 245
Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies
Berlin, J. A. (1995) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117645 · Cited by 191 · cited 1×
“Berlin has presented numerous examples illustrating this point [2].”
Background
Cited by
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569
“) and bias (variation in the quality of the design and conduct of the studies) (Glasziou and Sanders, 2002; Greenland and O’Rourke, 2001).”
BackgroundAssessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons
Lu, G., & Ades, A. E. (2006) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214505000001302 · Cited by 756
Oxidative stress markers in bipolar disorder: A meta-analysis
Andreazza, A. C., Kauer-Sant'Anna, M., Frey, B. N., Bond, D. J., Kapczinski, F., Young, L. T., & Yatham, L. N. (2008) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2008.04.013 · Cited by 526
(2006) · PubMed · Cited by 485
Doig, G. S., Heighes, P. T., Simpson, F., Sweetman, E. A., & Davies, A. R. (2009) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1664-4 · Cited by 464
Metadata
- Authors
- Glasziou, P. P., & Sanders, S. L.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-05-21
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1503-1511
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W1965338257
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.
