Cited by 411Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Predictive distributions for between‐study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta‐analysis

Open access
Turner, Rebecca M., Jackson, Dan, Wei, Yinghui, Thompson, Simon G., Higgins, Julian P. T.·2015·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Numerous meta‐analyses in healthcare research combine results from only a small number of studies, for which the variance representing between‐study heterogeneity is estimated imprecisely. A Bayesian approach to estimation allows external evidence on the expected magnitude of heterogeneity to be incorporated. The aim of this paper is to provide tools that improve the accessibility of Bayesian meta‐analysis. We present two methods for implementing Bayesian meta‐analysis, using numerical integration and importance sampling techniques. Based on 14 886 binary outcome meta‐analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , we derive a novel set of predictive distributions for the degree of heterogeneity expected in 80 settings depending on the outcomes assessed and comparisons made. These can be used as prior distributions for heterogeneity in future meta‐analyses. The two methods are implemented in R, for which code is provided. Both methods produce equivalent results to standard but more complex Markov chain Monte Carlo approaches. The priors are derived as log‐normal distributions for the between‐study variance, applicable to meta‐analyses of binary outcomes on the log odds‐ratio scale. The methods are applied to two example meta‐analyses, incorporating the relevant predictive distributions as prior distributions for between‐study heterogeneity. We have provided resources to facilitate Bayesian meta‐analysis, in a form accessible to applied researchers, which allow relevant prior information on the degree of heterogeneity to be incorporated. © 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by 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.6381

Cites

26 of 26 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turner, R. M., Jackson, D., Wei, Y., Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T.
Affiliations
  • MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Turner, Rebecca M.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-05
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
984-998
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W1857542727
Cited by
410
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
12.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (U105260558)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
study heterogeneity, predictive distribution, Bayesian meta-analysis, prior distributions, between-study variance, binary outcomes, odds ratio, numerical integration, importance sampling, external evidence
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Logistic Models, Databases, Bibliographic

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