Cited by 995Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyDelphi Technique in Research

Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified

Higgins, J. P T·2008·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

It is generally accepted that meta-analyses should assess heterogeneity, which may be defined as the presence of variation in true effect sizes underlying the different studies. This assessment might be achieved by performing a statistical test for heterogeneity, by quantifying its magnitude, by quantifying its impact or by a combination of these. Patsopoulos, Evangelou and Ioannidis propose methods for examining the effect of excluding studies (or groups of studies) on an assessment of heterogeneity.1 Their methods offer benefits over the sometimes practiced ‘leave one out’ approach to sensitivity analysis, by recognizing that the overall effect (against which heterogeneity is measured) changes each time an influential study is excluded. The authors offer a sequential approach (in which the overall effect and heterogeneity measure are re-estimated after the most influential study is removed at each iteration), and a combinatorial approach (in which groups of studies are removed). I suspect the sequential approach may often be performed informally in practice, whereby an obvious outlier is excluded, but another study then appears to be an outlier compared with the remaining studies and is in turn excluded. Of course, if heterogeneity permeates the entire set of studies, one might be tempted continue excluding studies to reduce heterogeneity until a single study remains. A predefined stopping rule (a ‘desired heterogeneity threshold’, in the authors’ terminology) may therefore appear to offer a useful way forward.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyn204

Cites

6 of 6 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Higgins, J. P. T.
Affiliations
MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Higgins, J. P T
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2008-10-01
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
1158-1160
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2153287976
Cited by
995
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
meta-analysis heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, leave-one-out analysis, stopping rules
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical

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