Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 744

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta‐analyses: application to a meta‐analysis of 65 trials

Baujat, Bertrand, Mahé, Cédric, Pignon, Jean‐Pierre, Hill, Catherine·2002·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.1221
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Heterogeneity can be a major component of meta‐analyses and by virtue of that fact warrants investigation. Classic analysis methods, such as meta‐regression, are used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. However, it may be difficult to apply such a method in complex cases or in the absence of an a priori hypothesis. This paper presents a graphical method to identify trials, groups of trials or groups of patients that are sources of heterogeneity. The contribution of these trials to the overall result can also be evaluated with this method. Each trial is represented by a dot on a 2D graph. The X‐axis represents the contribution of the trial to the overall Cochran Q‐test for heterogeneity. The Y‐axis represents the influence of the trial, defined as the standardized squared difference between the treatment effects estimated with and without the trial. This approach has been applied to data from the Meta‐Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (MACH‐NC) comprising 10850 patients in 65 randomized trials. The graphical method allowed us to identify trials that contributed considerably to the overall heterogeneity and had a strong influence on the overall result. It also provided useful information for the interpretation of heterogeneity in this meta‐analysis. The proposed graphical method identifies trials that account for most of the heterogeneity without having to explore all possible sources of heterogeneity by subgroup analyses. This method can also be applied to identify types of patients that explain heterogeneity in the treatment effect. 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.1221

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)90011-4 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1002/sim.4780080202 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<841::AID-SIM781>3.0.CO;2-D · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1002/sim.4780070807 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group, 1990, Treatment of early breast cancer
  6. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960330)15:6<619::AID-SIM188>3.0.CO;2-A · DOI
  7. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::AID-SIM494>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
  8. Sargent DJ, 2000, Meta‐Analysis in Medicine and Health Policy, 255

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Baujat, B., Mahé, C., Pignon, J., & Hill, C.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-09-10
Volume
21
Issue
18
Pages
2641-2652
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.1221
OpenAlex
W2085452046
Cited by
744
References
2
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Funders
  • Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale
  • Banque Nationale de Paris
  • Smithkline and Beecham
  • European Commission (961321)
  • Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (IDF 95013)

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.