The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Open accessAbstract
Although meta-analysis is now well established as a method of reviewing evidence, an uncritical use of the technique can be very misleading. One common problem is the failure to investigate appropriately the sources of heterogeneity, in particular the clinical differences between the studies included. This paper distinguishes between the concepts of clinical and statistical heterogeneity and exemplifies the importance of investigating heterogeneity by using published meta-analyses of epidemiological studies of serum cholesterol concentration and clinical trials of its reduction. Although not without some dangers of speculative conclusions, prompted by overzealous inspection of the data to hand, a sensible investigation of sources of heterogeneity should increase both the scientific and the clinical relevance of the results of meta-analyses.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
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
Practical Statistics for Medical Research.
Walter, S., & Altman, D. G. (1992) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532320 · Cited by 11,666
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Practical Statistics for Medical Research.
Bartko, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (1992) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290246 · Cited by 4,834
Altman, R., Carreras, L., Díaz, R. S., Figueroa, E. B., Paolasso, E., Parodi, J. C., Cade, J. F., Donnan, G. A., Eadie, M. J., Gavaghan, T. P., et al. (1994) · Cited by 3,322
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy
Early Breast Cancer Trialist's Collaborative Group (1992) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(92)90997-h · Cited by 2,169
Law, M., Wald, N., & Thompson, S. (1994) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6925.367 · Cited by 1,306
Yusuf, S. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470010097038 · Cited by 1,014
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Oxman A .Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews. In: Sackett D , ed Cochrane Collaboration Handbook.Section VI. Oxford:Cochrane Collaboration,1994.
- Meier, 1987, Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline [commentary]., Statist Med, 6, 329, 10.1002/sim.4780060322 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.308.6921.81 · DOI
- Schulz KF Chalmers I Hayes RJ Altman DG .Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodologic quality are associated with estimates of treatment effects in 250 controlled trials from 33 meta-analyses. JAMA (in press).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,081
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,270
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses
Riley, R. D., Higgins, J. P. T., & Deeks, J. J. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d549 · Cited by 2,884
Metadata
- Authors
- Thompson, S. G.
- Affiliations
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Thompson, S G
- ORCID
- Thompson, S G
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1994-11-19
- Volume
- 309
- Issue
- 6965
- Pages
- 1351-1355
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC2541868
- OpenAlex
- W1511524925
- Cited by
- 1,017
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 51
- FWCI
- 3.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- meta-analysis heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity, statistical heterogeneity, serum cholesterol, cholesterol lowering, meta-analysis methodology, overfitting
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aging, Cholesterol, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Risk Assessment
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
