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
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.
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
RUBIN, D. B. (1976) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581 · Cited by 9,925
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
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
Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Thompson, S. G. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351 · Cited by 1,017 · cited 1×
“It is always preferable to explain the between-study variability where possible (Thompson, 1994).”
BackgroundNam, I., Mengersen, K., & Garthwaite, P. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1410 · Cited by 153
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Arends, 2003, Statistics in medicine, 22, 1335, 10.1002/sim.1370 · DOI
- Berkey, 1996, Statistics in medicine, 15, 537, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960315)15:5<537::AID-SIM176>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
- Berkey, 1995, Journal of Dental Research, 74, 1030, 10.1177/00220345950740040201 · DOI
- 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
- Berrington, 2003, Biostatistics, 4, 423, 10.1093/biostatistics/4.3.423 · DOI
- Campbell, 2004, BMJ, 328, 702, 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 · DOI · Paper page
- Chu, 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 59, 1331, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.011 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- Dear, 1994, Biometrics, 50, 989, 10.2307/2533438 · DOI
- 2007, Biostatistics, 8, 239, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxl004 · DOI · Paper page
- Hasselblad, 1998, Medical Decision Making, 18, 37, 10.1177/0272989X9801800110 · DOI · Paper page
- Korn, 2005, Statistics in medicine, 24, 163, 10.1002/sim.1779 · DOI
- Lambert, 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 55, 86, 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00414-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 1988, Psychological bulletin, 103, 111, 10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.111 · DOI · Paper page
- Riley, 2007, Statistics in medicine, 26, 78, 10.1002/sim.2524 · DOI · Paper page
- 2007, BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 7, 3, 10.1186/1471-2288-7-3 · DOI · Paper page
- Riley, 2004, Clinical Cancer Research, 10, 4, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-1051-2 · DOI · Paper page
- Riley, 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 60, 431, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
- Riley, 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 57, 911, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.018 · DOI
- 2005, CLINICAL TRIALS, 2, 209, 10.1191/1740774505cn087oa · DOI · Paper page
- Thompson, 2005, Statistics in medicine, 24, 2241, 10.1002/sim.2100 · DOI
- van Houwelingen, 2002, Statistics in medicine, 21, 589, 10.1002/sim.1040 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Pillinger, T., McCutcheon, R. A., Vano, L., Mizuno, Y., Arumuham, A., Hindley, G., Beck, K., Natesan, S., Efthimiou, O., Cipriani, A., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30416-x · Cited by 1,090
Kalam, K., Otahal, P., & Marwick, T. H. (2014) · Heart · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2014-305538 · Cited by 1,040
Multivariate meta-analysis for non-linear and other multi-parameter associations
Gasparrini, A., Armstrong, B., & Kenward, M. G. (2012) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5471 · Cited by 772
Anothaisintawee, T., Reutrakul, S., Van Cauter, E., & Thakkinstian, A. (2016) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2015.10.002 · Cited by 640
A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis with Non-Independent Effect Sizes
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2019) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6 · Cited by 610
Metadata
- Authors
- Riley, R. D., Thompson, J. R., & Abrams, K. R.
- Venue
- Biostatistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.