The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Many meta-analyses contain only a small number of studies, which makes it difficult to estimate the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Bayesian meta-analysis allows incorporation of external evidence on heterogeneity, and offers advantages over conventional random-effects meta-analysis. To assist in this, we provide empirical evidence on the likely extent of heterogeneity in particular areas of health care. METHODS: Our analyses included 14 886 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We classified each meta-analysis according to the type of outcome, type of intervention comparison and medical specialty. By modelling the study data from all meta-analyses simultaneously, using the log odds ratio scale, we investigated the impact of meta-analysis characteristics on the underlying between-study heterogeneity variance. Predictive distributions were obtained for the heterogeneity expected in future meta-analyses. RESULTS: Between-study heterogeneity variances for meta-analyses in which the outcome was all-cause mortality were found to be on average 17% (95% CI 10-26) of variances for other outcomes. In meta-analyses comparing two active pharmacological interventions, heterogeneity was on average 75% (95% CI 58-95) of variances for non-pharmacological interventions. Meta-analysis size was found to have only a small effect on heterogeneity. Predictive distributions are presented for nine different settings, defined by type of outcome and type of intervention comparison. For example, for a planned meta-analysis comparing a pharmacological intervention against placebo or control with a subjectively measured outcome, the predictive distribution for heterogeneity is a log-normal (-2.13, 1.58(2)) distribution, which has a median value of 0.12. In an example of meta-analysis of six studies, incorporating external evidence led to a smaller heterogeneity estimate and a narrower confidence interval for the combined intervention effect. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis characteristics were strongly associated with the degree of between-study heterogeneity, and predictive distributions for heterogeneity differed substantially across settings. The informative priors provided will be very beneficial in future meta-analyses including few studies.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“This high heterogeneity might be expected for interventions reliant on uptake and adherence to behaviours, and for studies employing various strategies with different durations and intensities.53”
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Self-citationWinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility
Lunn, D. J., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2000) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1023/a:1008929526011 · Cited by 5,397
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396
Self-citationA 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
Self-citationAntidepressants for smoking cessation
Howes, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Livingstone-Banks, J., Hong, B., & Lindson, N. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000031.pub5 · Cited by 1,352
The Interpretation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis in Decision Models
Ades, A. E., Lu, G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x05282643 · Cited by 862
Self-citationBayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis
Sutton, A. J., & Abrams, K. R. (2001) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228020101000404 · Cited by 734
Antidepressants for smoking cessation
Hughes, J., Stead, L., & Lancaster, T. (2003) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000031 · Cited by 683
Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study
Smith, T. C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Thomas, A. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780142408 · Cited by 568
BORROWING STRENGTH FROM EXTERNAL TRIALS IN A META-ANALYSIS
Higgins, J. P. T., & WHITEHEAD, A. (1996) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19961230)15:24 · Cited by 559
Self-citationLambert, P. C., Sutton, A. J., Burton, P. R., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R. (2005) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2112 · Cited by 511
Davey, J., Turner, R. M., Clarke, M. J., & Higgins, J. P. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-160 · Cited by 404
Self-citationConfidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta‐analysis
Viechtbauer, W. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2514 · Cited by 399
Bias Modelling in Evidence Synthesis
Turner, R., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Smith, G. C. S., & Thompson, S. G. (2008) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00547.x · Cited by 319
Self-citationJackson, D., Bowden, J., & Baker, R. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference · doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2009.09.017 · Cited by 226
Estcourt, L. J., Stanworth, S. J., Doree, C. J., Blanco, P., Hopewell, S., Trivella, M., & Massey, E. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005341.pub3 · Cited by 214
Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & Van Der Linde, A. (2002) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00353 · Cited by 151
Models for Potentially Biased Evidence in Meta-Analysis using Empirically Based Priors
Welton, N. J., Ades, A. E., Carlin, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00548.x · Cited by 147
Higgins, J. P. T., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.96 · Cited by 123
Self-citationStanworth, S. J., Massey, E., Hyde, C., Brunskill, S. J., Navarette, C., Lucas, G., Marks, D. I., & Paulus, U. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005339 · Cited by 71
An informed reference prior for between‐study heterogeneity in meta‐analyses of binary outcomes
Pullenayegum, E. (2011) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4326 · Cited by 64
The Health Research Classification System
Viney, I. V. F. (2013) · euroCRIS DSpace CRIS digital repository (The International Organisation for Research Information) · Cited by 10
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Wood, 2006, The Epidemiology of Bias in Randomized (clinical) Controlled Trials: a Meta-epidemiological Study
- Foundation for Health Services Research, Health Outcomes Research: A Primer
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J. P., et al. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2385 · Cited by 8,269
Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., & on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group (2019) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch10 · Cited by 2,672
Self-citationCINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis
Nikolakopoulou, A., Higgins, J. P. T., Papakonstantinou, T., Chaimani, A., Del Giovane, C., Egger, M., & Salanti, G. (2020) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003082 · Cited by 1,935
Self-citationAnalysing Data and Undertaking Meta‐Analyses
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch9 · Cited by 1,800
Self-citationMethods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis
Veroniki, A. A., Jackson, D., Viechtbauer, W., Bender, R., Bowden, J., Knapp, G., Kuss, O., Higgins, J. P., Langan, D., & Salanti, G. (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1164 · Cited by 1,685
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Turner, R. M., Davey, J., Clarke, M. J., Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P.
- Affiliations
- MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
- Queen's University Belfast (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Turner, Rebecca M
- Venue
- International Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-03-29
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 818-827
- ISSN
- 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3685
- PMC
- PMC3396310
- OpenAlex
- W2131701504
- Cited by
- 837
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 7.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- British Heart Foundation (RG/08/014/24067)
- Medical Research Council (U1052.00.011)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- study heterogeneity, Bayesian meta-analysis, informative priors, external evidence, predictive distribution, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, pharmacological interventions, all-cause mortality, random-effects meta-analysis
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Humans, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
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
