The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability
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
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
Cox, D. R., & Hinkley, D. V. (1974) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2887-0 · Cited by 3,089
Much 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
Bayesian 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
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
Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data
Nyaga, V. N., Arbyn, M., & Aerts, M. (2014) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 · Cited by 2,139
Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Thomas, R., Sanders, S., Doust, J., Beller, E., & Glasziou, P. (2015) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3482 · Cited by 1,976
Lai, M.-C., Kassee, C., Besney, R., Bonato, S., Hull, L., Mandy, W., Szatmari, P., & Ameis, S. H. (2019) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30289-5 · Cited by 1,892
White, I. R., Barrett, J. K., Jackson, D., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2012) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1045 · Cited by 1,114
Cénat, J. M., Blais-Rochette, C., Kokou-Kpolou, C. K., Noorishad, P.-G., Mukunzi, J. N., McIntee, S.-E., Dalexis, R. D., Goulet, M.-A., & Labelle, P. R. (2021) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113599 · Cited by 952
Metadata
- Authors
- Hamza, T. H., van Houwelingen, H. C., & Stijnen, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-51
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2018696687
- Cited by
- 385
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 10.94
- 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: The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.016
- The paper
- Hamza, T. H., van Houwelingen, H. C., & Stijnen, T. (2008). The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.016
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.
