Cited by 14Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Meta-analysis: a unifying meta-likelihood approach framing unobserved heterogeneity, study covariates, publication bias, and study quality

Böhning, D.·2005·Methods of Information in Medicine

Abstract

Summary Objectives: This contribution provides a unifying concept for meta-analysis integrating the handling of unobserved heterogeneity, study covariates, publication bias and study quality. It is important to consider these issues simultaneously to avoid the occurrence of artifacts, and a method for doing so is suggested here. Methods: The approach is based upon the meta-likelihood in combination with a general linear nonparametric mixed model, which lays the ground for all inferential conclusions suggested here. Results: The concept is illustrated at hand of a meta-analysis investigating the relationship of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer. The phenomenon of interest has been investigated in many studies for a considerable time and different results were reported. In 1992 a meta-analysis by Sillero-Arenas et al. [1] concluded a small, but significant overall effect of 1.06 on the relative risk scale. Using the meta-likelihood approach it is demonstrated here that this meta-analysis is due to considerable unobserved heterogeneity. Furthermore, it is shown that new methods are available to model this heterogeneity successfully. It is argued further to include available study covariates to explain this heterogeneity in the meta-analysis at hand. Conclusions: The topic of HRT and breast cancer has again very recently become an issue of public debate, when results of a large trial investigating the health effects of hormone replacement therapy were published indicating an increased risk for breast cancer (risk ratio of 1.26). Using an adequate regression model in the previously published meta-analysis an adjusted estimate of effect of 1.14 can be given which is considerably higher than the one published in the meta-analysis of Sillero-Arenas et al. [1]. In summary, it is hoped that the method suggested here contributes further to a good meta-analytic practice in public health and clinical disciplines.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0038-1633931

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • NPML procedures provide a discrete distribution based on a finite number of mass points.

    “NPML procedures provide a discrete distribution that is based on a finite number of mass points (Laird, 1978; Böhning, 2005).”

    From A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis (2009) · cites this paper as Böhning, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Böhning, D.
Affiliations
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Böhning, D.
Venue
Methods of Information in Medicine
Published
2005
Volume
44
Issue
01
Pages
127-135
ISSN
  • 0026-1270 (ISSN-L)
  • 2511-705X
OpenAlex
W4360758405
Cited by
14
References
1
Citations by year
2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Methods of Information in Medicine (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
unobserved heterogeneity, publication bias, study quality, hormone replacement therapy, breast cancer risk

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