Meta-analysis: a unifying meta-likelihood approach framing unobserved heterogeneity, study covariates, publication bias, and study quality
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods
Greenland, S. (1994) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117248 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
“NPML procedures provide a discrete distribution that is based on a finite number of mass points (Laird, 1978; Böhning, 2005).”
BackgroundMueller, K. F., Meerpohl, J. J., Briel, M., Antes, G., von Elm, E., Lang, B., Motschall, E., Schwarzer, G., & Bassler, D. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.015 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Böhning, D.
- Affiliations
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Böhning, D.
- Venue
- Methods of Information in Medicine
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- 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