The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysis
Abstract
Many meta‐analyses use a random‐effects model to account for heterogeneity among study results, beyond the variation associated with fixed effects. A random‐effects regression approach for the synthesis of 2 × 2 tables allows the inclusion of covariates that may explain heterogeneity. A simulation study found that the random‐effects regression method performs well in the context of a meta‐analysis of the efficacy of a vaccine for the prevention of tuberculosis, where certain factors are thought to modify vaccine efficacy. A smoothed estimator of the within‐study variances produced less bias in the estimated regression coefficients. The method provided very good power for detecting a non‐zero intercept term (representing overall treatment efficacy) but low power for detecting a weak covariate in a meta‐analysis of 10 studies. We illustrate the model by exploring the relationship between vaccine efficacy and one factor thought to modify efficacy. The model also applies to the meta‐analysis of continuous outcomes when covariates are present.
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
Parametric empirical Bayes inference: theory and applications
Morris, C. N. (1983) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1983.10477920 · Cited by 1,448
Cited by
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies
Lazarou, J., Pomeranz, B. H., & Corey, P. N. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.15.1200 · Cited by 4,807
Younossi, Z. M., Golabi, P., Paik, J. M., Henry, A., Van Dongen, C., & Henry, L. (2023) · Hepatology · doi:10.1097/hep.0000000000000004 · Cited by 3,383
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.11 · Cited by 2,949
Metadata
- Authors
- Berkey, C. S., Hoaglin, D. C., Mosteller, F., & Colditz, G. A.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-02-28
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 395-411
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2103026252
- Cited by
- 879
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.88
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.4780140406
- The paper
- Berkey, C. S., Hoaglin, D. C., Mosteller, F., & Colditz, G. A. (1995). A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780140406
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.