Cited by 105Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Fixed vs random effects meta‐analysis in rare event studies: The Rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death

Open access
Shuster, Jonathan J., Jones, Lynn S., Salmon, Daniel A.·2007·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Meta‐analyses can be powerful tools to combine the results of randomized clinical trials and observational studies to make consensus inferences about a medical issue. It will be demonstrated that a common practice of testing for homogeneity of effect size, and acting upon the inference to decide between fixed vs random effects, can lead to potentially misleading results. A by‐product of this paper is a new ratio estimator approach to random effects meta‐analysis of a large set of studies with low event rates. As a case study, we shall use the recent Rosiglitazone example, where diagnostic testing failed to reject homogeneity, leading the investigators to use fixed effects. The results for the fixed and random effects analyses are discordant. In the fixed (random) effects analysis, the p‐values for myocardial infarction were 0.03 (0.11) while those for cardiac death were 0.06 (0.0017). Had the fixed effects analysis controlled the study error for multiple testing via a Bonferonni correction, the joint 95+ per cent confidence rectangle for the two outcomes would have included odds ratios of (1.0, 1.0). For the Rosiglitazone example, random effects analysis, where all studies receive the same weight, is the superior choice over fixed effects, where two large studies dominate. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.3060

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. Wiley: New York, 1977; 153-157.
  2. Saul S. New York Times, 22 May 2007. New York Times Online. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Statist. Med. 2007; 26:4375-4385 DOI: 10.1002/sim · DOI
  3. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Statist. Med. 2007; 26:4375-4385 DOI: 10.1002/sim · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shuster, J. J., Jones, L. S., & Salmon, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Shuster, Jonathan J.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09-03
Volume
26
Issue
24
Pages
4375-4385
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2050445438
Cited by
105
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
13.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000082)
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
fixed-effects meta-analysis, random-effects meta-analysis, rare events, ratio estimator, rosiglitazone, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, Bonferroni correction, multiple comparisons
MeSH terms
Rosiglitazone, Cardiovascular Diseases, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Myocardial Infarction, Risk Factors, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Logistic Models, Proportional Hazards Models, Odds Ratio, Thiazolidinediones

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