Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown

Riley, R. D., Thompson, J. R., Abrams, K. R.·2008·Biostatistics

Abstract

Multivariate meta-analysis models can be used to synthesize multiple, correlated endpoints such as overall and disease-free survival. A hierarchical framework for multivariate random-effects meta-analysis includes both within-study and between-study correlation. The within-study correlations are assumed known, but they are usually unavailable, which limits the multivariate approach in practice. In this paper, we consider synthesis of 2 correlated endpoints and propose an alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis (BRMA). This model maintains the individual weighting of each study in the analysis but includes only one overall correlation parameter, rho, which removes the need to know the within-study correlations. Further, the only data needed to fit the model are those required for a separate univariate random-effects meta-analysis (URMA) of each endpoint, currently the common approach in practice. This makes the alternative model immediately applicable to a wide variety of evidence synthesis situations, including studies of prognosis and surrogate outcomes. We examine the performance of the alternative model through analytic assessment, a realistic simulation study, and application to data sets from the literature. Our results show that, unless rho is very close to 1 or -1, the alternative model produces appropriate pooled estimates with little bias that (i) are very similar to those from a fully hierarchical BRMA model where the within-study correlations are known and (ii) have better statistical properties than those from separate URMAs, especially given missing data. The alternative model is also less prone to estimation at parameter space boundaries than the fully hierarchical model and thus may be preferred even when the within-study correlations are known. It also suitably estimates a function of the pooled estimates and their correlation; however, it only provides an approximate indication of the between-study variation. The alternative model greatly facilitates the utilization of correlation in meta-analysis and should allow an increased application of BRMA in practice.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/biostatistics/kxm023

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Arends, 2003, Statistics in medicine, 22, 1335, 10.1002/sim.1370 · DOI
  2. Berkey, 1996, Statistics in medicine, 15, 537, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960315)15:5<537::AID-SIM176>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
  3. Berkey, 1995, Journal of Dental Research, 74, 1030, 10.1177/00220345950740040201 · DOI
  4. Berkey, 1998, Statistics in medicine, 17, 2537, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981130)17:22<2537::AID-SIM953>3.0.CO;2-C · DOI · Paper page
  5. Berrington, 2003, Biostatistics, 4, 423, 10.1093/biostatistics/4.3.423 · DOI
  6. Campbell, 2004, BMJ, 328, 702, 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chu, 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 59, 1331, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.011 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Daniels, 1997, Statistics in medicine, 16, 1965, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970915)16:17<1965::AID-SIM630>3.0.CO;2-M · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dear, 1994, Biometrics, 50, 989, 10.2307/2533438 · DOI
  10. 2007, Biostatistics, 8, 239, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxl004 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Hasselblad, 1998, Medical Decision Making, 18, 37, 10.1177/0272989X9801800110 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Korn, 2005, Statistics in medicine, 24, 163, 10.1002/sim.1779 · DOI
  13. Lambert, 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 55, 86, 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00414-0 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 1988, Psychological bulletin, 103, 111, 10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.111 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Riley, 2007, Statistics in medicine, 26, 78, 10.1002/sim.2524 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 2007, BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 7, 3, 10.1186/1471-2288-7-3 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Riley, 2004, Clinical Cancer Research, 10, 4, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-1051-2 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Riley, 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 60, 431, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Riley, 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 57, 911, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.018 · DOI
  20. 2005, CLINICAL TRIALS, 2, 209, 10.1191/1740774505cn087oa · DOI · Paper page
  21. Thompson, 2005, Statistics in medicine, 24, 2241, 10.1002/sim.2100 · DOI
  22. van Houwelingen, 2002, Statistics in medicine, 21, 589, 10.1002/sim.1040 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
Riley, R. D., Thompson, J. R., & Abrams, K. R.
Venue
Biostatistics
Published
2007-07-11
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
172-186
ISSN
  • 1465-4644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4357
OpenAlex
W2110597233
Cited by
167
References
5
FWCI
5.65
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: An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/biostatistics/kxm023
The paper
Riley, R. D., Thompson, J. R., & Abrams, K. R. (2008). An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxm023

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.