The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Covariate heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: Criteria for deciding between meta‐regression and individual patient data
Abstract
Meta‐analyses of clinical trials are increasingly seeking to go beyond estimating the effect of a treatment and may also aim to investigate the effect of other covariates and how they alter treatment effectiveness. This requires the estimation of treatment‐covariate interactions. Meta‐regression can be used to estimate such interactions using published data, but it is known to lack statistical power, and is prone to bias. The use of individual patient data can improve estimation of such interactions, among other benefits, but it can be difficult and time‐consuming to collect and analyse. This paper derives, under certain conditions, the power of meta‐regression and IPD methods to detect treatment–covariate interactions. These power formulae are shown to depend on heterogeneity in the covariate distributions across studies. This allows the derivation of simple tests, based on heterogeneity statistics, for comparing the statistical power of the analysis methods. Copyright © 2006 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
Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533 · Cited by 2,415
QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THE REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC LITERATURE1
GREENLAND, S. (1987) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298 · Cited by 1,644
Cited by
Van Kerkhove, M. D., Vandemaele, K. A. H., Shinde, V., Jaramillo-Gutierrez, G., Koukounari, A., Donnelly, C. A., Carlino, L. O., Owen, R., Paterson, B., Pelletier, L., et al. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001053 · Cited by 706
Bally, M., Dendukuri, N., Rich, B., Nadeau, L., Helin-Salmivaara, A., Garbe, E., & Brophy, J. M. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j1909 · Cited by 528
Dias, S., Sutton, A. J., Welton, N. J., & Ades, A. E. (2013) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x13485157 · Cited by 466
Bower, P., Kontopantelis, E., Sutton, A., Kendrick, T., Richards, D. A., Gilbody, S., Knowles, S., Cuijpers, P., Andersson, G., Christensen, H., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f540 · Cited by 341
Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology
Debray, T. P. A., Moons, K. G. M., van Valkenhoef, G., Efthimiou, O., Hummel, N., Groenwold, R. H. H., Reitsma, J. B., & on behalf of the GetReal methods review group (2015) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1160 · Cited by 348
Cooper, H., & Patall, E. A. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0015565 · Cited by 339
Meta‐analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data
Riley, R. D., Lambert, P. C., Staessen, J. A., Wang, J., Gueyffier, F., Thijs, L., & Boutitie, F. (2008) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3165 · Cited by 279
Gagnier, J. J., Moher, D., Boon, H., Beyene, J., & Bombardier, C. (2012) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-111 · Cited by 222
Past major depression and smoking cessation outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis update
Hitsman, B., Papandonatos, G. D., McChargue, D. E., DeMott, A., Herrera, M. J., Spring, B., Borrelli, B., & Niaura, R. (2013) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.12009 · Cited by 162
“Such IPD-level analyses are known to be more powerful than meta-regression methods for detecting interactions [41], and are not susceptible to ecological bias that can arise when examining study-level aggregates of participant characteristics [42].”
BackgroundRisk of bias: a simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis
Hempel, S., Miles, J. N., Booth, M. J., Wang, Z., Morton, S. C., & Shekelle, P. G. (2013) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-107 · Cited by 137
Hua, H., Burke, D. L., Crowther, M. J., Ensor, J., Tudur Smith, C., & Riley, R. D. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7171 · Cited by 113
Panagioti, M., Bower, P., Kontopantelis, E., Lovell, K., Gilbody, S., Waheed, W., Dickens, C., Archer, J., Simon, G., Ell, K., et al. (2016) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1794 · Cited by 94
Wu, J. H. Y., Cahill, L. E., & Mozaffarian, D. (2013) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3899 · Cited by 83
Furukawa, T. A., Weitz, E. S., Tanaka, S., Hollon, S. D., Hofmann, S. G., Andersson, G., Twisk, J., DeRubeis, R. J., Dimidjian, S., Hegerl, U., et al. (2017) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.116.187773 · Cited by 73
Goudie, A. C., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., & Donald, A. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.022 · Cited by 63
Lai, L., Liu, Y., McCracken, L. M., Li, Y., & Ren, Z. (2023) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2023.104308 · Cited by 60
Thombs, B. D., Benedetti, A., Kloda, L. A., Levis, B., Riehm, K. E., Azar, M., Cuijpers, P., Gilbody, S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., McMillan, D., et al. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009742 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Simmonds, M. C., & Higgins, J. P. T.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12-29
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 2982-2999
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2160672817
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.76
- 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.
