The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta‐analyses
Abstract
Multivariate meta‐analysis is increasingly used in medical statistics. In the univariate setting, the non‐iterative method proposed by DerSimonian and Laird is a simple and now standard way of performing random effects meta‐analyses. We propose a natural and easily implemented multivariate extension of this procedure which is accessible to applied researchers and provides a much less computationally intensive alternative to existing methods. In a simulation study, the proposed procedure performs similarly in almost all ways to the more established iterative restricted maximum likelihood approach. The method is applied to some real data sets and an extension to multivariate meta‐regression is described. Copyright © 2009 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 in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Self-citationSmall sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood
Kenward, M. G., & Roger, J. H. (1997) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533558 · Cited by 4,552 · cited 1×
“The standard use of the estimated between-study variance matrix as the true matrix when pooling the studies’ results will be adopted, although Kenward and Roger [14] give small sample procedures where REML is used.”
MethodRandom-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update
DerSimonian, R., & Kacker, R. (2007) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004 · Cited by 2,374
Improved tests for a random effects meta‐regression with a single covariate
Knapp, G., & Hartung, J. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1482 · Cited by 2,075
Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1752 · Cited by 1,267 · cited 1×
“Typically, relatively simple procedures are used when combining the results, although more sophisticated methodology is also available [1]; for example, meta-regression [2, 3] provides the means to investigate the associations of study-level covariates with the treatment effect and explain between-study heterogeneity.”
MethodSelf-citationA refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome
Hartung, J., & Knapp, G. (2001) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1009 · Cited by 775
A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies
Sidik, K., & Jonkman, J. N. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2688 · Cited by 380
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- Sutton AJ, 2002, Methods for Meta‐analysis in Medical Research
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::AID-SIM235>3.0.CO;2-V · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.2524 · DOI
- Riley RD, 2007, Bivariate random effects meta‐analysis and the estimation of between‐study correlation, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7
- 10.1002/sim.1040 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00375.x · DOI
- Thompson SG, 2008, Can meta‐analyses be trusted?, Lancet, 338, 1464
- 10.1198/sbr.2009.0009 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::AID-SIM494>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960330)15:6<619::AID-SIM188>3.0.CO;2-A · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990215)18:3<321::AID-SIM28>3.0.CO;2-P · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sim.2078 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.3299 · DOI
- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxm023 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.2913 · DOI
- 10.2307/2530695 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.791 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/1520-6750(200009)47:6<500::AID-NAV3>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI
- 10.1016/S0024-3795(99)00095-6 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.2883 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00732.x · DOI
- 10.1177/1536867X0900900103 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/01.hjr.0000114968.39211.01 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.294.14.1799 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00489.x · DOI
- Hartung J, 2002, Positive estimation of the between‐group variance component in one‐way ANOVA and meta‐analysis, South African Statistical Journal, 36, 55
- Taye HH, 2008, The binomial distribution of meta‐analysis was preferred to model within‐study variability, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 41, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.016 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.2897 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10729-007-9041-8 · DOI
- 10.1093/biostatistics/3.4.445 · DOI
Cited by
Di Angelantonio, E., Bhupathiraju, S. N., Wormser, D., Gao, P., Kaptoge, S., de Gonzalez, A. B., Cairns, B. J., Huxley, R., Jackson, C. L., Joshy, G., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30175-1 · Cited by 2,821
Self-citationMeta-analysis in clinical trials revisited
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (2015) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002 · Cited by 2,677
Aune, D., Giovannucci, E., Boffetta, P., Fadnes, L. T., Keum, N., Norat, T., Greenwood, D. C., Riboli, E., Vatten, L. J., & Tonstad, S. (2017) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyw319 · Cited by 2,419
Wang, X., Ouyang, Y., Liu, J., Zhu, M., Zhao, G., Bao, W., & Hu, F. B. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g4490 · Cited by 1,596
Reducing and meta-analysing estimates from distributed lag non-linear models
Gasparrini, A., & Armstrong, B. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-1 · Cited by 1,081
Metadata
- Authors
- Jackson, D., White, I. R., & Thompson, S. G.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-05-19
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1282-1297
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2144373793
- Cited by
- 594
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 16.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
- doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)
- Funders
- UK Medical Research Council (U.1052.00.006, U.1052.00.001)
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.
