The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 31 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Meta-analysis in the presence of unexplained heterogeneity is frequently undertaken by using a random-effects model, in which the effects underlying different studies are assumed to be drawn from a normal distribution. Here we discuss the justification and interpretation of such models, by addressing in turn the aims of estimation, prediction and hypothesis testing. A particular issue that we consider is the distinction between inference on the mean of the random-effects distribution and inference on the whole distribution. We suggest that random-effects meta-analyses as currently conducted often fail to provide the key results, and we investigate the extent to which distribution-free, classical and Bayesian approaches can provide satisfactory methods. We conclude that the Bayesian approach has the advantage of naturally allowing for full uncertainty, especially for prediction. However, it is not without problems, including computational intensity and sensitivity to a priori judgements. We propose a simple prediction interval for classical meta-analysis and offer extensions to standard practice of Bayesian meta-analysis, making use of an example of studies of ‘set shifting’ ability in people with eating disorders.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper re-evaluates random-effects meta-analysis, arguing that inference should address the whole distribution of effects—especially prediction—rather than only the mean effect. It proposes a simple classical prediction interval and illustrates the issues with 14 studies of set-shifting ability in eating disorders.
Key findings
- Focusing only on the mean of the random-effects distribution is insufficient: two meta-analytic data sets can produce identical mean estimates and standard errors while differing greatly in heterogeneity, so τ² and the whole distribution matter.
- Distribution-free classical methods can estimate μ and τ² but cannot satisfactorily address prediction; the paper proposes an approximate prediction interval using a t-distribution with k−2 degrees of freedom.
- In the 14-study set-shifting example, heterogeneity was Q=16.73, df=13, P=0.02, I²=22%, and τ²=0.022; the classical random-effects interval was 0.19–0.53, while the approximate prediction interval for a new study ranged from −0.01 to 0.74.
- Bayesian normal random-effects analysis gave μ median 0.36 (95% credible interval 0.18–0.55), θ_new median 0.36 (−0.12–0.84), P(θ_new<0)=0.950, and τ² median 0.023 (0.000024–0.196); Bayesian credible intervals were wider because uncertainty in τ² was properly accounted for.
Methods
- The paper is a methodological re-evaluation structured around estimation, prediction, and hypothesis testing, comparing distribution-free, classical parametric, Bayesian, and non-normal/flexible random-effects approaches.
- The example uses 14 comparative studies of set-shifting ability in people with eating disorders versus healthy controls, taken from Roberts et al. (2007), with effect sizes as standardized differences in means and their standard errors.
- Analyses include classical inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis with a moment estimate of between-study variance, and Bayesian normal random-effects meta-analysis via MCMC in WinBUGS with a uniform prior for τ (>0) and a vague N(0,10³) prior for μ; sensitivity analyses used a t-distribution with 4 degrees of freedom, an inverse gamma prior, and a shrinkage prior.
Limitations
- Stated: the Bayesian approach has problems including computational intensity and sensitivity to a priori judgements; prior choice can substantially affect results; model uncertainty is not accounted for; the normal random-effects assumption is strong and usually made without convincing evidence; few studies make τ² and μ imprecise; separating diversity from bias is difficult; and caution is warranted with funnel plot asymmetry.
- Stated: the example data were available only as effect sizes and confidence intervals, from which standard errors were calculated; more detailed data should be explicitly modelled when available.
- Evident: the example has only 14 studies and some large within-study standard errors; the paper notes that meta-analyses with very small numbers of studies (2–4) pose particular problems, and prediction intervals depend on the number of studies and within-study standard errors.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
52 Own interpretation · 22 Not checked yet · 12 No basis given · 7 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The approximate prediction interval (12) for the true effect in a new study, however, ranges from −0.01 to 0.74, which is slightly less convincing.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
In the paper
“Alternatively using an inverse gamma distribution for τ2 with parameters 0.001 and 0.001 (Smith et al., 1995) produces a prediction interval from −0.008 to 0.73 (P(θnew<0)=0.973)”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith et al., 1995 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| τ2 | 0.023 | (0.000024, 0.196) | — |”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
In the paper
“There is some heterogeneity between the effect sizes, accounting for 22% of the variation in point estimates by using the statistic I2 (Higgins and Thompson, 2002).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Higgins and Thompson, 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A random-effects meta-analysis reveals a statistically significant benefit on average, based on the inference in equation (13) regarding μ alone.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is evident from Table 1, as well as from the estimated effect sizes, plotted with 95% confidence intervals in Fig. 2, that the majority of trials indicate greater set shifting deficiency in people with eating disorders.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
In the paper
“Correspondingly, the test for qualitative interaction (9) produces a statistically non-significant test statistic Q*=2.56, compared with a critical value of 14.15 for a significance level of 5% (Gail and Simon, 1985).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gail and Simon, 1985 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such an assumption of homogeneity can seldom be made for studies in the biomedical and social sciences.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This property is shared with the conventional test from a random-effects meta-analysis, i.e. of hypothesis (2) against”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.3 Statistical tests in the presence of heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Estimation of τ2 is just as important.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.1 Estimation in random-effects meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Various sensitivity analyses have small effects on the results, though they do not materially affect the conclusions from the Bayesian meta-analysis.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“using the shrinkage prior that was advocated by DuMouchel and Normand (2000) produces a prediction interval from −0.009 to 0.72 (P(θnew<0)=0.973)”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites DuMouchel and Normand (2000)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The estimate of the heterogeneity variance is 0.022 and the test for heterogeneity is statistically significant at conventional levels of significance.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using a t-distribution with 4 degrees of freedom for the random effects yields a prediction interval from −0.16 to 0.89 (P(θnew<0)=0.947).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results for μ and θnew are comparable with the classical results, with credible intervals being wider because the Bayesian analyses properly account for uncertainty in the estimation of τ2.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| μ | 0.36 | (0.18, 0.55) | 0.999 |”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| θnew | 0.36 | (−0.12, 0.84) | 0.950 |”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although sources of heterogeneity should ideally be investigated (Thompson, 1994), selection of covariates to explain heterogeneity can be difficult, both practically (Higgins et al., 2002) and theoretically (Thompson and Higgins, 2002).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Realistic interpretation of predictions from a random-effects model can, however, be difficult.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.2 Prediction using random-effects meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This variance explicitly describes the extent of the heterogeneity and has a crucial role in assessing the degree of consistency of effects across studies, which is an element of random-effects meta-analysis that often receives too little attention.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.1 Estimation in random-effects meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, a single parameter cannot adequately summarize heterogeneous effects (Raudenbush and Bryk, 1985) and so focusing on μ alone is usually insufficient.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.1 Estimation in random-effects meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Raudenbush and Bryk, 1985 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although often useful, the test may be misleading if there is heterogeneity and in particular will not reject hypothesis (1) if effects are variable and centred on 0.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.3 Statistical tests in the presence of heterogeneity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses are often built on an assumption that directions of effect are consistent across studies (Peto, 1987), yet formal tests of this important supposition are not routinely undertaken.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.3 Statistical tests in the presence of heterogeneity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peto, 1987 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important rationale for meta-analyses is the possibility of increased power, compared with the individual studies, to detect moderate effects.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.3 Statistical tests in the presence of heterogeneity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We have argued that such a null hypothesis is typically untenable and have discouraged the use of homogeneity tests in favour of quantifying the extent of heterogeneity (Higgins and Thompson, 2002).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 2 Important questions to address in a random-effects meta-analysis > 2.3 Statistical tests in the presence of heterogeneity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Higgins and Thompson, 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Point estimation of μ and τ2 poses no problem, although confidence intervals rely on approximating distributions, sometimes based on the central limit theorem, which may not be realistic when there are few studies.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 3 Meeting the important objectives with no distributional assumption for the random effects > 3.6 Summarizing remarks
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The available effect estimates are unbiased for the study-specific effects θi.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The estimated variances may be used in place of the true variances.
In the paper
“However, NPML has been noted to be unstable (Van Houwelingen et al., 1993) and has not been widely adopted.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 6 Non-normal and flexible assumptions for the random effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Houwelingen et al., 1993 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“NPML procedures provide a discrete distribution that is based on a finite number of mass points (Laird, 1978; Böhning, 2005).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 6 Non-normal and flexible assumptions for the random effects
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assumption of a normal distribution for the random-effects distribution allows the calculation of confidence intervals and prediction intervals.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.6 Summarizing remarks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random-effects distribution is normal.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second potential advantage of a Bayesian approach is the intuitive interpretation of posterior distributions in terms of probability, including the ready availability of probabilities that effects exceed specified levels.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.6 Summarizing remarks
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A particular advantage of the NPML approach is its ability to detect and incorporate outliers.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 6 Non-normal and flexible assumptions for the random effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bayesian probabilities can address a variety of questions more readily than classical hypothesis tests.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.5 Testing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whatever the reason for it, an asymmetric funnel plot leads necessarily to a difference in point estimates between common effect and random-effects meta-analyses (using standard inverse variance methods), because random-effects methods give relatively more weight to less precise studies.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 8 Some special considerations in random-effects meta-analysis > 8.2 Reporting biases and small study effects
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses of a large number of large studies lend themselves to relatively complex models, since there may be strong evidence against a normal distribution assumption for the random effect.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 6 Non-normal and flexible assumptions for the random effects
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The posterior distribution for the underlying mean μ is readily available from a Bayesian meta-analysis.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.2 Mean effect
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice, it can be difficult to separate diversity from bias, and it is partly this lack of identifiability that often necessitates the use of the conventional random-effects model.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 8 Some special considerations in random-effects meta-analysis > 8.1 Diversity and bias
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true (unbiased) effects Φi follow a normal distribution across studies.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The study-specific bias components βi follow a normal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The diversity and bias components are uncorrelated.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect being evaluated in the ith study is the sum of the true effect and bias: θi=Φi+βi.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The posterior distributions for the study-specific effects θi are readily available from a Bayesian analysis. These provide fully Bayesian shrunken estimates, in which inference for each particular study is performed by ‘borrowing strength’ from the other studies.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.3 Study effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“An important distinction to make when considering heterogeneity of effect sizes is between the effects of diversity (variation in populations, interventions, exposures, outcome measures etc.) and bias (variation in the quality of the design and conduct of the studies) (Glasziou and Sanders, 2002; Greenland and O'Rourke, 2001).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 8 Some special considerations in random-effects meta-analysis > 8.1 Diversity and bias
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glasziou and Sanders, 2002
- Not checked yetcites Greenland and O'Rourke, 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No model for the random-effects distribution will be ‘true’, and we might seek a parsimonious model that adequately fits the observed data.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this uncertainty does not extend to the choice of model for the random effects, which is more difficult to defend empirically when there are few studies.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.6 Summarizing remarks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random-effects distribution is normal.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tests for heterogeneity have low power when there are few studies, and heterogeneity may be just as likely for small numbers of studies as it is for large numbers of studies.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 8 Some special considerations in random-effects meta-analysis > 8.3 Small numbers of studies
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, when 2×2 contingency tables are available for binary outcomes, meta-analyses are appropriately performed by using binomial likelihoods (Smith et al., 1995; Warn et al., 2002).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bayesian posterior probabilities in particular can depend heavily on the distribution of the assumed likelihood and prior specification.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.6 Summarizing remarks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The prior distributions of μ and τ2 are independent.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The derivation of the predictive distributions for the effect θnew in a future study has received little methodological attention in a frequentist context.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.4 Prediction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, it is unclear how prior distributions should be specified, which is an important limitation since Bayes factors can be very sensitive to them (Kass and Raftery, 1995).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.5 Testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kass and Raftery, 1995 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such an infinite population does not in reality exist, although the construct does allow inference about treatment effects to be extended to a broader population than the studies at hand.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 4 Classical parametric and Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The true predictive distribution is a complex function of the degree of heterogeneity, the number of studies and the within-study standard errors.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.6 Summarizing remarks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A particular advantage is that they may be used to provide evidence specifically in favour of a null hypothesis.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.5 Testing
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a classical point of view, interpretation of parametric random-effects meta-analysis is formally in the context of an imaginary ‘universe’, or ‘population’ of similar effects from which the effects in the observed studies are independently and identically sampled.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 4 Classical parametric and Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A realistic predictive distribution must recognize, however, that τ2 is estimated, usually from a small number of studies, and imprecision in affects both terms in the variance of θnew.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects > 5.4 Prediction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Approximately, the predictive distribution of θnew follows a t-distribution with k−2 degrees of freedom.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Requiring only two parameters for its full specification, the most parsimonious choice is also the conventional choice, where f(Φ) is chosen to be a normal distribution: (10)”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 5 Meeting the important objectives with a normal assumption for the random effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flexible distributions such as Bayesian semiparametric models are available, although it remains difficult to implement non-normal distributions outside an MCMC approach to the analysis.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 9 Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A Bayesian approach has the additional advantages of flexibility, allowing incorporation of full uncertainty in all parameters (but not uncertainty in the model) and of yielding more readily interpretable inferences.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 9 Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many situations this is the most feasible assumption given the limited number of studies and the lack of strong evidence for or against the assumption.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 9 Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the rationale is not strong for opting for a common effect model in this situation.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 8 Some special considerations in random-effects meta-analysis > 8.3 Small numbers of studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses of very few studies need not ‘default’ to a common effect model, since informative prior distributions for the extent of heterogeneity can be incorporated in a simple Bayesian approach.”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 9 Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Furthermore, certain common effect approaches have practical advantages over random-effects methods. For example, they are easier to implement, and the one-step ‘Peto’ method has been observed to have desirable properties when binary events are rare (Bradburn et al., 2006).”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 9 Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bradburn et al., 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
If an effect exists then heterogeneity exists, although it may be negligible.
“We assume a priori that if an effect exists then heterogeneity exists, although it may be negligible.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The available effect estimates are unbiased for the study-specific effects θi.
“For generality, the situation that we address assumes only the availability of effect estimates that are unbiased for θi (i =1,…,k), with sampling variance (i.e. squared standard error) .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The estimated variances may be used in place of the true variances.
“We shall follow the conventional assumption that estimates (which are independent of ) may be used in place of the true variances, and we use the two interchangeably.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The effect estimates from each study are normally distributed.
“We are willing to assume normality of the effect estimates from each study, so(6)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The prior distributions of μ and τ2 are independent.
“It is standard to assume prior independence of μ and τ2.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Approximately, the predictive distribution of θnew follows a t-distribution with k−2 degrees of freedom.
“Again taking a t-distribution with k−2 degrees of freedom, we assume that, approximately, (11)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The between-study variance is common to each study.
“The assumption of a common between-study variance for each study is a strong one that we return to in Section 8.1.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The underlying effects are exchangeable.
“Fundamental to a Bayesian approach to random-effects meta-analysis is the concept of exchangeability. Exchangeability represents a judgement that the treatment effects may be non-identical but their magnitudes cannot be differentiated a priori (Skene and Wakefield, 1990; Gelman et al., 1995).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The random-effects distribution is normal.
“Requiring only two parameters for its full specification, the most parsimonious choice is also the conventional choice, where f(Φ) is chosen to be a normal distribution: (10)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The random effects in the meta-analysis are normally distributed.
“by assuming a normal distribution for the random effects”
“Using a normal distribution for the underlying effects in different studies is a strong assumption”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The true (unbiased) effects Φi follow a normal distribution across studies.
“we represent this by using a normal distribution across the ‘true’ (unbiased) effects”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The study-specific bias components βi follow a normal distribution.
“Suppose that the study-specific bias components follow a normal distribution such that .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The diversity and bias components are uncorrelated.
“assuming that the diversity and bias components are uncorrelated”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The effect being evaluated in the ith study is the sum of the true effect and bias: θi=Φi+βi.
“The effect being evaluated in the ith study, θi, is the sum of the true effect and bias: θi=Φi+βi.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In addition to the pooled 95% CI, a 95% prediction interval (PI) was calculated to reflect the expected dispersion of true effects in future clinical settings (20,21).”
From Comparison of point‑of‑care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta‑analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“a 95% prediction interval (PI) was calculated to reflect the expected dispersion of true effects in future clinical settings (20,21).”
From Comparison of point‑of‑care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta‑analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“This is particularly relevant when confronting sparse data, multiple comparisons, collinearity, or non-identification, and for deriving PI.51”
From A framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as [51]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
“Note that P(θnew<0)=0.950 in Table 2 corresponds to the point at which the full curve in Fig. 3(b) crosses the vertical axis (at approximately 5% probability)”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
“| Parameter | Median | 95% credible interval | P(parameter > 0) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | μ | 0.36 | (0.18, 0.55) | 0.999 | | θnew | 0.36 | (−0.12, 0.84) | 0.950 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
“Random-effects meta-analysis: standardized mean difference (95% credible interval 0.19–0.53); U*=4.23 (P =2×10−5); .”
§ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis > 7 Example
“Classical normal random-effects meta-analysis results as traditionally presented appear at the bottom of Table 1.”
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722 · cited 1×
“This may reflect publication bias, or correlation between study size and another important covariate such as quality of study (Egger et al., 1997).”
BackgroundMeta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552 · cited 6×
“Heterogeneity Several estimators of the heterogeneity variance τ2 are available that are based on normal likelihoods, including iterative maximum likelihood and restricted maximum likelihood estimates (DerSimonian and Laird, 1986; DerSimonian and Kacker, 2007).”
MethodInfluentialQuantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763 · cited 10×
“Confidence intervals for measures of inconsistency can be calculated (Higgins and Thompson, 2002).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationGelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 · Cited by 12,558
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Rosenbaum, P. R., Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1987) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2289186 · Cited by 6,027 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundStatistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,840
Gelman, A. (2006) · Bayesian Analysis · doi:10.1214/06-ba117a · Cited by 4,050 · cited 1×
“It has been suggested that a prior distribution on τ might comprise the positive part of a symmetric distribution around 0, say Cauchy or normal (Gelman, 2006).”
BackgroundAssessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309 · cited 1×
“There are strong arguments against the former (Greenland and O’Rourke, 2001) and an item-based approach to dealing with quality is to be preferred (Jüni et al., 2001).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- DuMouchel, 1994, Hierarchical Bayes linear models for meta-analysis
- Morris, 1992, Hierachical models for combining information and for meta-analysis, Bayes. Statist., 4, 321
- Stein, 1956, Proc. 3rd Berkeley Symp, 197
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 801–900 of 1,013
Botheju, W. S. P., Zghyer, F., Mahmud, S., et al. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-38853-8 · Cited by 38
Harris, R. G., Neale, E. P., & Ferreira, I. (2019) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqz071 · Cited by 38
Spirometric indices in primary ciliary dyskinesia: systematic review and meta-analysis
Halbeisen, F. S., Jose, A., de Jong, C. C. M., et al. (2019) · ERJ Open Research · doi:10.1183/23120541.00231-2018 · Cited by 38
Belbasis, L., Mavrogiannis, M. C., Emfietzoglou, M., & Εvangelou, Ε. (2020) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-020-00618-3 · Cited by 36
Garg, R., Mohan, B. P., Ponnada, S., Singh, A., Aminian, A., Regueiro, M. D., & Click, B. H. (2020) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-020-04729-4 · Cited by 38
McCarty, T. R., Sobani, Z. A., & Rustagi, T. (2020) · Endoscopy International Open · doi:10.1055/a-1236-3187 · Cited by 38
“Given the use of random effects model to estimate average effect, a 95% prediction interval was calculated to determine the dispersion of effects and clearly illustrate heterogeneity in the calculated effect size [15,20 – 23].”
MethodJohansen, M. E., & Argyropoulos, C. (2020) · Clinical Cardiology · doi:10.1002/clc.23508 · Cited by 39
Paracetamol/acetaminophen (single administration) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period
Chou, D., Abalos, E. J., Gyte, G. M., & Gülmezoglu, A. M. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008407.pub2 · Cited by 38
Sanchez, S., Hickerson, M. M., Patel, R. R., Ghazaleh, D., Tarchand, R., Paranjape, G. S., Pope, H., Ortega‐Gutiérrez, S., Pederson, J. M., Hasan, D. M., et al. (2023) · Stroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · doi:10.1161/svin.122.000707 · Cited by 39
“24 In brief, a 95% prediction interval estimates where the true effects are to be expected for 95% of similar (exchangeable) studies that might be conducted in the future.”
Ades, A. E., Caldwell, D. M., Reken, S., Welton, N. J., Sutton, A. J., & Dias, S. (2012) · Bristol Research (University of Bristol) · Cited by 38
Combining data and meta-analysis to build Bayesian networks for clinical decision support
Yet, B., Perkins, Z., Rasmussen, T. E., Tai, N. R. M., & Marsh, W. (2014) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2014.07.018 · Cited by 39
Renehan, A. G., Solomon, M., Zwahlen, M., Morjaria, R., Whatmore, A. J., Audı́, L., Binder, G., Blum, W. F., Bougneres, P. F., Santos, C. D., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwr408 · Cited by 37
Hypnotic suggestibility in dissociative and related disorders: A meta-analysis
Wieder, L., Brown, R. J., Thompson, T., & Terhune, D. B. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104751 · Cited by 37
“For analyses with k > =5, we supplemented SMDs and 95% CIs with 95% prediction intervals (PIs) following Riley and colleagues (Riley et al., 2011) (see also Higgins et al., 2009; IntHout et al., 2016).”
MethodBartholomeyczik, K., Gusenbauer, M., & Treffers, T. (2022) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2022.2099349 · Cited by 41
“We computed confidence and prediction intervals following recommendations by Higgins et al. (2009).”
BackgroundMethodIhlenfeldt, S. D., & Rios, J. A. (2022) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/02655322221112364 · Cited by 59
Yeshitila, Y. G., Daniel, B., Desta, M., & Kassa, G. M. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275400 · Cited by 38
“A random-effect model was used as a method of analysis to test results with the presence of heterogeneity [58,59].”
MethodYoshida, R. D. A., Yoshida, W. B., Maffei, F. H. D. A., Dib, R. E., Nunes, R., & Rollo, H. A. (2013) · Annals of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2012.06.010 · Cited by 37
“The methodological quality of the included trials was judged using the criteria described by Higgins and colleagues.(15) Therefore, random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias (e.”
MethodEmilsson, L., Holme, Ø., Bretthauer, M., Cook, N. R., Buring, J. E., Løberg, M., Adami, H., Sesso, H. D., Gaziano, M., & Kalager, M. (2016) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.13857 · Cited by 39
“PrIs represent an interval within which the estimate of a future study is expected to be found.(23) We assumed a common heterogeneity across all”
BackgroundHarfouche, M., Chemaitelly, H. S., Kouyoumjian, S. P., Mahmud, S., Chaabna, K., Kanaani, Z. A., & Abu-Raddad, L. J. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187177 · Cited by 37
“The prediction interval was calculated to identify the range where the true effect around the mean falls [33, 35].”
Exact Inference on the Random-Effects Model for Meta-Analyses With Few Studies
Michael, H., Thornton, S., Xie, M., & Tian, L. (2018) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/biom.12998 · Cited by 36
“One reason for this poor performance is that the asymptotic approximation ignores the variability in estimating the heterogeneous variance, which can be substantial when the number of studies is small (Higgins et al., 2009).”
BackgroundAffective symptoms and apathy in myotonic dystrophy type 1 a systematic review and meta-analysis.
van der Velden, B. G. J., Okkersen, K., Kessels, R., Groenewoud, J., van Engelen, B. V., Knoop, H., & Raaphorst, J. (2019) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.03.036 · Cited by 37
He, Y., Ong, A. Y., Li, X., Din, F. V., Brown, E. R., Timofeeva, M. N., Wang, Z., Farrington, S. M., Campbell, H., Dunlop, M. G., et al. (2019) · Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2019.05.014 · Cited by 35
“We also calculated the 95% prediction interval (PI) integrating the heterogeneity for the summarized C-statistic to indicate a possible range where a C-statistic of a future validation study may be located [16,17].”
MethodMohan, B. P., Chandan, S., Garg, R., Mohamed, S., Shakhatreh, M. K., Dugyala, S., Mashiana, H. S., Ponnada, S., Asokkumar, R., & Adler, D. G. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1097/mcg.0000000000001228 · Cited by 38
Pignatelli, P., Farcomeni, A., Menichelli, D., et al. (2019) · Internal and Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11739-019-02204-2 · Cited by 37
Franco, J. V. A., Jung, J. H., Imamura, M., Borofsky, M. S., Omar, M. I., Liquitay, C. M. E., Young, S., Veroniki, A. A., Garegnani, L., & Dahm, P. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013656 · Cited by 36
Siemens, W., Schwarzer, G., Rohe, M. S., Buroh, S., Meerpohl, J. J., & Becker, G. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.010 · Cited by 39
Tewari, N., Goel, S., Mathur, V. P., O’Connell, A. C., Johnson, R. M., Rahul, M., Sultan, F., Goswami, M., Srivastav, S., & Ritwik, P. (2022) · International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry · doi:10.1111/ipd.12963 · Cited by 37
‘Cross hairs’ plots for diagnostic meta‐analysis
Phillips, B., Stewart, L. A., & Sutton, A. J. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.26 · Cited by 37
Meier, P., Indermuehle, A., Pitt, B., Traupe, T., de Marchi, S. F., Crake, T., Knapp, G., Lansky, A. J., & Seiler, C. A. (2012) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-62 · Cited by 37
“[4] We now also present the heterogeneity measures (tau and I^2) directly within the results instead of at the end.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialClinical Interventions to Promote Breastfeeding by Latinas: A Meta-analysis
Wouk, K., Lara-Cinisomo, S., Stuebe, A. M., Poole, C., Petrick, J. L., & McKenney, K. M. (2015) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2423 · Cited by 37
Grabovac, I., Veronese, N., Štefanac, S., Haider, S., Jackson, S. E., Koyanagi, A., Meilinger, M., Stubbs, B., Firth, J., Soysal, P., et al. (2019) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciz539 · Cited by 38
Mohan, B. P., Khan, S. R., Daugherty, E., Chandan, S., Ponnada, S., Facciorusso, A., Kassab, L. L., Asokkumar, R., & Adler, D. G. (2022) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.004 · Cited by 36
Yang, Y.-K., Lin, C.-Y., Chen, P., & Jhou, H. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm12062267 · Cited by 40
“The inverse variance method fixed-effect model as well as the DerSimonian and Laird estimator random-effects model were applied [29], and the mean difference was calculated with 95% confidence intervals to measure continuous outcomes [30].”
MethodWambua, S., Singh, M., Okoth, K., Snell, K. I. E., Riley, R. D., Yau, C., Thangaratinam, S., Nirantharakumar, K., Crowe, F. L., & on behalf of the MuM-PreDiCT Group (2024) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-024-03284-4 · Cited by 46
“The 95% prediction interval (95% PI) for each meta-analysis was also estimated to evaluate the expected uncertainty in the effect estimates for a study evaluating the same association [41, 42].”
MethodRiccò, M., Corrado, S., Bottazzoli, M., Marchesi, F., Gili, R., Bianchi, F. P., Frisicale, E. M., Guicciardi, S., Fiacchini, D., Tafuri, S., et al. (2024) · Viruses · doi:10.3390/v16091498 · Cited by 37
Human chorionic gonadotrophin priming for fertility treatment with in vitro maturation
Reavey, J. J., Vincent, K., Child, T. J., & Granne, I. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008720.pub2 · Cited by 37
Sekercioglu, N., Busse, J. W., Sekercioglu, M. F., Agarwal, A., Shaikh, S., Lopes, L. C., Mustafa, R. A., Guyatt, G. H., & Thabane, L. (2016) · Renal Failure · doi:10.3109/0886022x.2016.1172468 · Cited by 36
“concealment, level of blinding, incomplete outcome data, loss to follow-up and stopping early for benefit or futility.(17) Reviewers chose among response options of ‘‘definitely yes’’, ‘‘probably yes’’, ‘‘probably no’’, and ‘‘definitely no’’ for each of the domains, with ‘‘definitely yes’’ and ‘‘probably yes’’ ultimat…”
Mitra, S., Flórez, I. D., Tamayo, M. E., Aune, D., Mbuagbaw, L. C. E., Veroniki, A. A., & Thabane, L. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011271 · Cited by 39
D’Angelo, F., Antolino, L., Farcomeni, A., et al. (2017) · Medical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s12032-017-0951-0 · Cited by 36
Belbasis, L., Dosis, V., & Εvangelou, Ε. (2018) · International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1111/1756-185x.13356 · Cited by 37
“We also estimated the 95% prediction interval, which further accounts for between‐study heterogeneity and evaluates the uncertainty for the effect that would be expected in a new study addressing the same association.(36,37) We applied the regression asymmetry test proposed by Egger and colleagues in order to assess w…”
MethodFluoxetine for adults who are overweight or obese
Serralde-Zúñiga, A. E., Garay, A. G. G., Rodríguez‐Carmona, Y., & Meléndez, G. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011688.pub2 · Cited by 36
Chili Consumption and Risk of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Du, Y., Lv, Y., Zha, W., et al. (2020) · Nutrition and Cancer · doi:10.1080/01635581.2020.1733625 · Cited by 36
Veronese, N., Demurtas, J., Thompson, T., Solmi, M., Pesolillo, G., Celotto, S., Barnini, T., Stubbs, B., Maggi, S., Pilotto, A., et al. (2020) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bcp.14310 · Cited by 36
Chandan, S., Mohan, B. P., Khan, S. R., et al. (2020) · Endoscopy International Open · doi:10.1055/a-1236-3350 · Cited by 36
McCarty, T. R., Hathorn, K., Bazarbashi, A. N., Jajoo, K., Ryou, M. K., & Thompson, C. C. (2021) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-020-07758-3 · Cited by 36
Yu, Q., Xu, Y., Yu, E., & Zheng, Z. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/jcpt.13598 · Cited by 36
TARG Meta-Research Group & Collaborators (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076264 · Cited by 33
Lan, C.-W., Scott-Sheldon, L. A. J., Carey, K. B., Johnson, B. T., & Carey, M. P. (2017) · International Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12529-016-9596-1 · Cited by 33
A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Drug Court Cost-Effectiveness
Downey, P. M., & Roman, J. (2010) · Cited by 35
Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Eggenschwiler, L. C., Rutjes, A. W., Musy, S. N., Ausserhofer, D., Nielen, N. M., Schwendimann, R., Unbeck, M., & Simon, M. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273800 · Cited by 40
“Furthermore, between study heterogeneity was evaluated visually and by calculating the prediction intervals [47, 48].”
Lorenz, M., Bickel, H., Bots, M. L., Breteler, M. M. B., Catapano, A. L., Desvarieux, M., Hedblad, B., Iglseder, B., Johnsen, S. H., Juraska, M., et al. (2010) · American Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2010.02.008 · Cited by 35
“We found that 25 (95% CI 13-55) studies may be eligible for stage 1 and 10 (3-34) for stage 2.”
BackgroundSelf-citationFixed Effect and Random Effects Meta-Analysis
Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rücker, G. (2015) · Use R! · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21416-0_2 · Cited by 34
Jackson, D., & Bowden, J. (2016) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0219-y · Cited by 35
Residential Proximity to Major Roadways and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis
Zhao, Z., Lin, F., Wang, B., et al. (2016) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph14010003 · Cited by 35
Papageorgiou, S. N., Xavier, G. M., Cobourne, M. T., & Eliades, T. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.017 · Cited by 33
“95% CIs around all heterogeneity measures were calculated to quantify existing uncertainty [25], while 95% predictive intervals were to be calculated for the meta-epidemiological synthesis to provide a range of possible effects for a future”
MethodRen, S., Oakley, J. E., & Stevens, J. (2018) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x18759488 · Cited by 34
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research
Kelley, G. A., & Kelley, K. S. (2019) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114519002241 · Cited by 37
“From an applied perspective, PI may make more sense because they help to determine uncertainty about whether an intervention works or not(97).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialAntza, C., Vazakidis, P., Doundoulakis, I., Bouras, E., Haidich, A., Stabouli, S., & Kotsis, V. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Hypertension · doi:10.1111/jch.13876 · Cited by 36
Pastori, D., Baratta, F., Rocco, A. D., Farcomeni, A., Ben, M. D., Angelico, F., Violi, F., Pignatelli, P., & Lip, G. Y. H. (2021) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105418 · Cited by 37
Implications of the open science era for educational psychology research syntheses
Patall, E. A. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009 · Cited by 37
Albuquerque, A. M., Tramujas, L., Sewanan, L. R., Williams, D. R., & Brophy, J. M. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0548 · Cited by 33
Kumar, A., Chandan, S., Mohan, B. P., Atla, P. R., McCabe, E. J., Robbins, D. H., Trindade, A. J., & Benias, P. C. (2022) · Endoscopy International Open · doi:10.1055/a-1765-4035 · Cited by 35
“We assessed heterogeneity between study-specific estimates by using Cochran’s Q statistical test for heterogeneity, 95% prediction interval and the I2 statistics [34].”
Edafe, O., Mech, C. E., & Balasubramanian, S. P. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012845.pub2 · Cited by 36
“We would have interpreted random-eAects meta-analyses with due consideration to the whole distribution of eAects and wanted to present a prediction interval (Borenstein 2017a; Borenstein 2017b; Higgins 2009).”
MethodBurke, D. L., Bujkiewicz, S., & Riley, R. D. (2016) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280216631361 · Cited by 34
Oyono, M. G., Kenmoe, S., Abanda, N. N., et al. (2022) · PLoS neglected tropical diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010610 · Cited by 34
“Prevalences for future studies were determined by calculating a prediction interval [22,25].”
MethodMeta-Analysis in Organizational Research: A Guide to Methodological Options
Morris, S. B. (2022) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031921-021922 · Cited by 37
Bushi, G., Padhi, B. K., Shabil, M., Satapathy, P., Rustagi, S., Pradhan, K. B., Al‐qaim, Z. H., Khubchandani, J., Sah, R., Sah, S. K., et al. (2023) · Diseases · doi:10.3390/diseases11030103 · Cited by 34
“for 95% of similar studies that may be conducted in the future [27].”
BackgroundTyler, C. J., Reeve, T., Sieh, N., & Cheung, S. S. (2024) · Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise · doi:10.1007/s42978-023-00263-8 · Cited by 34
“%) of similar, future experiments [31].”
Riccò, M., Cascio, A., Corrado, S., Bottazzoli, M., Marchesi, F., Gili, R., Giuri, P. G., Gori, D., & Manzoni, P. (2024) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines12050500 · Cited by 36
Realized population change for long‐term monitoring: California spotted owl case study
Conner, M. M., Keane, J. J., Gallagher, C. V., Jehle, G., Munton, T. E., Shaklee, P. A., & Gerrard, R. A. (2013) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.1002/jwmg.591 · Cited by 34
“This is presumably because inference is exact and MCMC incorporates all uncertainty in the modeled system (Royle and Dorazio 2008, Higgins et al. 2009, Kéry 2010), thus providing a more realistic estimate of the variance of mean l and D.”
BackgroundWarren, F. C., Abrams, K. R., & Sutton, A. J. (2014) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6131 · Cited by 33
“The use of hierarchical models has a long history in Bayesian methods generally; such models, which facilitate the implementation of assumptions of exchangeability, are commonly used in evidence synthesis applications [20].”
MethodDahabreh, I. J., & Murray, S. J. (2011) · Cancer Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2011.01.007 · Cited by 32
“The calculation of the predictive interval incorporates the uncertainty in the location and spread of the random effects distribution [22].”
BackgroundSoft tissue substitutes in non-root coverage procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bertl, K., Melchard, M., Pandis, N., Müller-Kern, M., & Stavropoulos, A. (2017) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-016-2044-4 · Cited by 35
“1 would be considered indicative of significant heterogeneity [8].”
BackgroundAiolfi, A., Tornese, S., Bonitta, G., Cavalli, M., Rausa, E., Micheletto, G., Campanelli, G., & Bona, D. (2019) · Asian Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.03.019 · Cited by 35
Reyes, A., Révil, C., Niggli, M., Chebon, S., Schlagmüller, S., Flacke, J.-P., Zortel, M., Paz‐Priel, I., Asikanius, E., Hampton, R., et al. (2019) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1080/03007995.2019.1649378 · Cited by 35
Mixed milk feeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of its prevalence and drivers
Monge-Montero, C., van der Merwe, L. F., Papadimitropoulou, K., Agostoni, C. V., & Vitaglione, P. (2020) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaa016 · Cited by 33
Role of psychotherapy on antenatal depression, anxiety, and maternal quality of life
Li, C., Sun, X., Li, Q., Sun, Q., Wu, B., & Duan, D. (2020) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000020947 · Cited by 39
“A meta-analysis was conducted based on a random effects model.([60]) The effect sizes are reported as weighted Hedge’s g.”
MethodAssociation between vitiligo and hearing loss
Ma, S., Ang, M.-D., Chang, Y.-T., & Dai, Y. (2021) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.12.029 · Cited by 34
Hepatitis B virus infection increases the risk of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis
Liu, X., Zhang, Z.-H., & Jiang, F. (2021) · Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1080/00365521.2020.1868568 · Cited by 34
“Due to the variability of study design, the random effects model was used in all analyses on the basis of the assumption that heterogeneity existed among all the studies included [13].”
MethodMarlborough, M. A., Welham, A., Jones, C., Reckless, S., & Moss, J. F. (2021) · Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders · doi:10.1186/s11689-021-09362-5 · Cited by 46
Kelley, G. A., Kelley, K. S., & Jones, D. L. (2011) · Arthritis · doi:10.1155/2011/125485 · Cited by 38
“However, these values should not be confused with confidence intervals since prediction intervals are based on a random mean effect while confidence intervals are not [20, 21].”
BackgroundMethodGünhan, B. K., Friede, T., & Held, L. (2017) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1285 · Cited by 35
Phillips, R. S., Gopaul, S., Gibson, F., Houghton, E., Craig, J. V., Light, K., & Pizer, B. L. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007786.pub2 · Cited by 34
Tosi, G., Mentesana, B., & Romano, D. (2023) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218231156849 · Cited by 40
“This Bayesian hierarchical model (Higgins et al., 2009; Röver, 2020) assumes that the observed effect size reported in each study is an estimate of the “true” effect.”
Luzio, P. D., Brady, L., Turrini, S., Romei, V., Avenanti, A., & Sel, A. (2024) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105933 · Cited by 33
“(Higgins et al., 2009; IntHout et al., 2016).”
Guidance on the implementation and reporting of a drug safety Bayesian network meta‐analysis
Ohlssen, D. I., Price, K. L., Xia, H. A., Hong, H., Kerman, J., Fu, H., Quartey, G., Heilmann, C. R., Ma, H., & Carlin, B. P. (2013) · Pharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1002/pst.1592 · Cited by 33
Kelley, G. A., & Kelley, K. S. (2014) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-121 · Cited by 33
“analyses would include 95% prediction intervals (PIs), these were calculated if the findings were statistically significant and the results from each study included in each meta-analysis were provided [33-35].”
MethodBarkas, F., Elisaf, M., Tsimihodimos, V., & Milionis, H. J. (2016) · Diabetes & Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2016.10.006 · Cited by 32
Meta-Analysis and the Myth of Generalizability
Tett, R. P., Hundley, N. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2017) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2017.26 · Cited by 34
“Consumers of (I-O) meta-analytic findings are urged to consider SD(rho) and SE(rxy) as equal in importance to mean rho when drawing inferences (Higgins et al., 2009; Tett & Christiansen, 2007).”
BackgroundNoma, H., Nagashima, K., Maruo, K., Gosho, M., & Furukawa, T. A. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7578 · Cited by 34
White, I. R., Kaptoge, S., Royston, P. J., & Sauerbrei, W. (2018) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7974 · Cited by 31
Pastori, D., Bucci, T., Triggiani, M., Ames, P. R. J., Parrotto, S., Violi, F., Pignatelli, P., & Farcomeni, A. (2019) · Autoimmunity Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2019.03.005 · Cited by 33
The Epidemiology of Hepatitis D Virus in North Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Daw, M. A., Daw, A. M., Sifennasr, N. E. M., et al. (2018) · The Scientific World JOURNAL · doi:10.1155/2018/9312650 · Cited by 33
“The data in this review are reported according to the guidelines of PreferredReporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [22, 23].”
MethodWound drainage for caesarean section
Gates, S., & Anderson, E. R. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004549.pub2 · Cited by 33
Giossi, R., Menichelli, D., Pani, A., Tratta, E., Romandini, A., Roncato, R., Nani, A., Schenardi, P. A., Diani, E., Fittipaldo, V. A., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2021.698008 · Cited by 30
Duong, K. N. C., Le, L. M., Veettil, S. K., Saidoung, P., Wannaadisai, W., Nelson, R. E., Friedrichs, M., Jones, B. E., Pavia, A. T., Jones, M., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1206988 · Cited by 32
Domic, D., Bertl, K., Lang, T., Pandis, N., Ulm, C., & Stavropoulos, A. (2023) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-023-05227-4 · Cited by 37
“The chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity, and a p -value 0.1 was considered indicative of significant heterogeneity [23].”
MethodInfluentialAdel, A., Berkvens, D. L., Abatih, E. N., Soukehal, A., Bianchini, J., & Saegerman, C. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161051 · Cited by 32
“A random effects meta-analysis model was used in order to better account for heterogeneities (within and between study variability) among the different studies considered [47].”
MethodCai, Z., & Fan, X. (2019) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2019.1689348 · Cited by 32
Comparing traditional and Bayesian approaches to ecological meta‐analysis
Pappalardo, P., Ogle, K., Hamman, E., Bence, J., Hungate, B., & Osenberg, C. (2020) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13445 · Cited by 23
“Another solution is to specify more informative priors for 2 among based on a synthesis of past publications (Higgins et al., 2009).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J.
- Affiliations
- MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Higgins, Julian P. T.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-07-24
- Volume
- 172
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 137-159
- ISSN
- 0964-1998 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-985X
- PMC
- PMC2667312
- OpenAlex
- W2108116635
- Semantic Scholar
- b42717775886e436d97964fca187c3248684112e
- Cited by
- 2,569
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 222 · 2025: 197 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 186 · 2022: 208 · 2021: 246 · 2020: 224 · 2019: 160 · 2018: 153 · 2017: 124 · 2016: 128 · 2015: 117 · 2014: 93 · 2013: 96 · 2012: 89
- FWCI
- 38.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- UK Medical Research Council (U.1052.00.011, U.1052.00.001, U.1052.00.005)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- random-effects meta-analysis, heterogeneity, Bayesian meta-analysis, prediction intervals, nonparametric inference, hypothesis testing, set-shifting, eating disorders, prior sensitivity
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
