The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis of Data from Epidemiologic Studies: A Commentary
Abstract
Graham A. Colditz, Elisabeth Burdick, Frederick Mosteller; Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis of Data from Epidemiologic Studies: A Commentary, American Journal of
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Two articles recommended stratifying by study design if heterogeneity is large and adjusting for study design if heterogeneity is small [51, 77].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [77]
In the citing paper
“The majority of articles advised against the use of scales but 12 articles recommended their use [29, 30, 48–50, 52, 53, 56, 66, 77, 86, 91].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [77]
In the citing paper
“Some authors agreed that study design should be investigated as a potential source of between study heterogeneity [8, 34, 42, 77], and others recommended presenting meta-analyses for each study type alongside results from an overall meta-analysis [42, 83].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [77]
In the citing paper
“One common recommendation was to explore heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses, comparing studies stratified by design or clinical features [12, 16, 29, 34, 39, 51, 55, 56, 66, 77, 85, 100, 102].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [77]
In the citing paper
“Many recommended to define these subgroups a priori to reduce the risk of false positive findings [33, 52, 77, 106].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [77]
In the citing paper
“This approach was, however, often criticised because of low power to detect heterogeneity in case of few (< 10) included studies [52, 77, 101, 104, 116, 118].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [77]
In the citing paper
“Second, the use of a random-effects model for meta-analysis of observational studies by default was frequently recommended [8, 16, 29, 34, 70, 77, 100, 101].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [77]
In the citing paper
“A common misinterpretation of the random-effects assumption is that the studies themselves are sampled from a population of studies (Hedges, 1987; Anello and Fleiss, 1995; Colditz et al., 1995).”
From A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis (2009) · cites this paper as Colditz et al., 1995
In the citing paper
“This implies that the types of participants, natures of exposures, design aspects, and so on, are randomly selected from a distribution of possibilities, which is an inappropriate interpretation because studies are individually designed dependent on the results of previous studies (Peto, 1987) and the evolutionary process of scientific research (Colditz et al., 1995).”
From A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis (2009) · cites this paper as Colditz et al., 1995
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
(1963) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 15,085
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,252
Physical Activity and the Incidence of Coronary Heart Disease
Powell, K. E., Thompson, P. D., Caspersen, C. J., & Kendrick, J. S. (1987) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.pu.08.050187.001345 · Cited by 1,457
A meta-analysis of physical activity in the prevention of coronary heart disease.
BERLIN, J. A., & COLDITZ, G. A. (1990) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115704 · Cited by 1,382
Self-citationA method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials
Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V. A., & Chalmers, T. C. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198702193160806 · Cited by 1,257
Yusuf, S. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470010097038 · Cited by 1,014
Whittmore, A. S., Harris, R. B., & Itnyre, J. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116427 · Cited by 1,011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies
Lazarou, J., Pomeranz, B. H., & Corey, P. N. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.15.1200 · Cited by 4,807
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
“A common misinterpretation of the random-effects assumption is that the studies themselves are sampled from a population of studies (Hedges, 1987; Anello and Fleiss, 1995; Colditz et al., 1995).”
BackgroundResultPanethnic Differences in Blood Pressure in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Modesti, P. A., Reboldi, G., Cappuccio, F. P., Agyemang, C., Remuzzi, G., Rapi, S., Perruolo, E., Parati, G., & ESH Working Group on CV Risk in Low Resource Settings (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147601 · Cited by 1,366
Long-term weight-loss maintenance: a meta-analysis of US studies
Anderson, J. W., Konz, E. C., Frederich, R. C., & Wood, C. L. (2001) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/74.5.579 · Cited by 1,351
Breast-feeding and cognitive development: a meta-analysis
Anderson, J. W., Johnstone, B. M., & Remley, D. T. (1999) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/70.4.525 · Cited by 1,276
Metadata
- Authors
- Colditz, G. A., Burdick, E., & Mosteller, F.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Colditz, Graham A.
- ORCID
- Colditz, Graham A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-08-15
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 371-382
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2269058722
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 2.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS05936)
- 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 › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- heterogeneity, meta-analysis, epidemiological studies, study heterogeneity, pooled estimates
- MeSH terms
- Epidemiologic Methods, Models, Theoretical, Meta-Analysis as Topic
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
