Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research
Abstract
Biases in systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be examined in 'meta-epidemiological' studies, in which the influence of trial characteristics such as measures of study quality on treatment effect estimates is explored. Published studies to date have analysed data from collections of meta-analyses with binary outcomes, using logistic regression models that assume that there is no between- or within-meta-analysis heterogeneity. Using data from a study of publication bias (39 meta-analyses, 394 published and 88 unpublished trials) and language bias (29 meta-analyses, 297 English language trials and 52 non-English language trials), we compare results from logistic regression models, with and without robust standard errors to allow for clustering on meta-analysis, with results using a 'meta-meta-analytic' approach that can allow for between- and within-meta-analysis heterogeneity. We also consider how to allow for the confounding effects of different trial characteristics. We show that both within- and between meta-analysis heterogeneity may be of importance in the analysis of meta-epidemiological studies, and that confounding exists between the effects of publication status and trial quality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
All meta-epidemiological studies of bias identified by the working groups related to randomized trials.
“although all such studies identified related to randomized trials”
From A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E) (2024) · cites this paper as Sterne et al., 2002
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 382
- Authors
- Sterne, J. A. C., Jüni, P., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- University of Bern (CH)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-05-21
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1513-1524
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2151883475
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 12.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.K. National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Programme (97/18/05)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- meta-epidemiology, publication bias, language bias, meta-analysis heterogeneity, robust standard errors, meta-meta-analysis, trial quality, confounding, study characteristics, treatment effect estimates, meta-analyses of meta-analyses
- MeSH terms
- Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Logistic Models, Treatment Outcome
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