CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Heterogeneity and Meta-Regression

Schwarzer, Guido, Carpenter, James R., Rücker, Gerta·2015·Use R!
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-21416-0_4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-21416-0_4

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Berlin, J.A., Santanna, J., Schmid, C.H., Szczech, L.A., Feldman, H.I.: Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat. Med. 21, 371–387 (2002) · DOI
  2. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., Rothstein, H.: Introduction to Meta Analysis. Wiley, Chichester (2009) · DOI · Paper page
  3. Cochran, W.G.: The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 10, 101–129 (1954) · DOI · Paper page
  4. Colditz, G.A., Brewer, T., Berkey, C., Wilson, M., Burdick, E., Fineberg, H., Mosteller, F.: Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Meta-analysis of the published literature. JAMA 271(9), 698–702 (1994)
  5. DerSimonian, R., Laird, N.: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 7, 177–188 (1986) · DOI · Paper page
  6. Engels, E.A., Schmid, C.H., Terrin, N., Olkin, I., Lau, J.: Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat. Med. 19, 1707–1728 (2000) · DOI
  7. Galbraith, R.F.: A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat. Med. 7, 889–894 (1988) · DOI
  8. Hardy, R.J., Thompson, S.G.: Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 17, 841–856 (1998) · DOI · Paper page
  9. Higgins, J.P.T., Thompson, S.G.: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558 (2002) · DOI · Paper page
  10. Knapp, G., Biggerstaff, B.J., Hartung, J.: Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis. Biom. J. 48, 271–285 (2006) · DOI
  11. Mittlböck, M., Heinzl, H.: A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Stat. Med. 25, 4321–4333 (2006) · DOI
  12. Rücker, G., Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J.R., Schumacher, M.: Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8, 79 (2008). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-79. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/79 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Senn, S.: The many modes of meta. Drug Inf. J. 34, 535–549 (2000) · DOI
  14. Sidik, K., Jonkman, J.N.: Simple heterogeneity variance estimation for meta-analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C 54(2), 367–384 (2005) · DOI
  15. The Cochrane Collaboration: Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen (2014)
  16. Thompson, S.G., Higgins, J.P.T.: How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat. Med. 21, 1559–1573 (2002) · DOI · Paper page
  17. Thompson, S.G., Sharp, S.J.: Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat. Med. 18, 2693–2708 (1999) · DOI
  18. Viechtbauer, W.: Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 26, 37–52 (2007) · DOI
  19. Viechtbauer, W.: Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36(3), 1–48 (2010) · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rücker, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Use R!
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2015
Pages
85-104
ISSN
  • 2197-5736 (ISSN-L)
  • 2197-5744
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-21416-0_4
OpenAlex
W2396789893
Cited by
18
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.90
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Use R! (publishedVersion)
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
statistical heterogeneity, meta-regression, subgroup analysis, meta-analysis

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