The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of seven random‐effects models for meta‐analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio
Open accessAbstract
Comparative trials that report binary outcome data are commonly pooled in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. This type of data can be presented as a series of 2‐by‐2 tables. The pooled odds ratio is often presented as the outcome of primary interest in the resulting meta‐analysis. We examine the use of 7 models for random‐effects meta‐analyses that have been proposed for this purpose. The first of these models is the conventional one that uses normal within‐study approximations and a 2‐stage approach. The other models are generalised linear mixed models that perform the analysis in 1 stage and have the potential to provide more accurate inference. We explore the implications of using these 7 models in the context of a Cochrane Review, and we also perform a simulation study. We conclude that generalised linear mixed models can result in better statistical inference than the conventional 2‐stage approach but also that this type of model presents issues and difficulties. These challenges include more demanding numerical methods and determining the best way to model study specific baseline risks. One possible approach for analysts is to specify a primary model prior to performing the systematic review but also to present the results using other models in a sensitivity analysis. Only one of the models that we investigate is found to perform poorly so that any of the other models could be considered for either the primary or the sensitivity analysis.
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
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569 · cited 17×
“Hence, when fitting model 7 to outcome 4, we called rma.glmm using syntax of the form rma.glmm(measure="OR", ai=A, bi=B, ci=C, di=D, data=thedata2, model="CM.EL", control=list(optCtrl=list( maxit=20000, reltol=0.0001), optmethod="Nelder-Mead")).”
InfluentialDeeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163
Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model
Viechtbauer, W. (2005) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986030003261 · Cited by 1,699
Self-citationMethods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis
Veroniki, A. A., Jackson, D., Viechtbauer, W., Bender, R., Bowden, J., Knapp, G., Kuss, O., Higgins, J. P., Langan, D., & Salanti, G. (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1164 · Cited by 1,685
Self-citationMuch ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events
Bradburn, M. J., Deeks, J. J., Berlin, J. A., & Russell Localio, A. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2528 · Cited by 938
A 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
Stijnen, T., Hamza, T. H., & Özdemir, P. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4040 · Cited by 757
Self-citationBayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study
Smith, T. C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Thomas, A. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780142408 · Cited by 568
Davey, J., Turner, R. M., Clarke, M. J., & Higgins, J. P. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-160 · Cited by 404
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
A bivariate approach to meta-analysis
Van Houwelingen, H. C., Zwinderman, K. H., & Stijnen, T. (1993) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780122405 · Cited by 327
Self-citation
Cited by
A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses
Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., Jackson, D., Bowden, J., Veroniki, A. A., Kontopantelis, E., Viechtbauer, W., & Simmonds, M. (2019) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1316 · Cited by 1,074
Self-citationMeta-analysis of proportions using generalized linear mixed models.
Lin, L., & Chu, H. (2020) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000001232 · Cited by 345
Arcsine‐based transformations for meta‐analysis of proportions: Pros, cons, and alternatives
Lin, L., & Xu, C. (2020) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.178 · Cited by 339
An extended mixed‐effects framework for meta‐analysis
Sera, F., Armstrong, B., Blangiardo, M., & Gasparrini, A. (2019) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.8362 · Cited by 323
Ju, K., Lin, L., Chu, H., Cheng, L.-L., & Xu, C. (2020) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01035-6 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Jackson, D., Law, M., Stijnen, T., Viechtbauer, W., & White, I. R.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-01-08
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1059-1085
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2783147278
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 19.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.
