The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Interpretation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis in Decision Models
Abstract
This article shows that the interpretation of the random-effects models used in meta-analysis to summarize heterogeneous treatment effects can have a marked effect on the results from decision models. Sources of variation in meta-analysis include the following: random variation in outcome definition (amounting to a form of measurement error), variation between the patient groups in different trials, variation between protocols, and variation in the way a given protocol is implemented. Each of these alternatives leads to a different model for how the heterogeneity in the effect sizes previously observed might relate to the effect size(s) in a future implementation. Furthermore, these alternative models require different computations and, when the net benefits are nonlinear in the efficacy parameters, result in different expected net benefits. The authors’ analysis suggests that the mean treatment effect from a random-effects meta-analysis will only seldom be an appropriate representation of the efficacy expected in a future implementation. Instead, modelers should consider either the predictive distribution of a future treatment effect, or they should assume that the future implementation will result in a distribution of treatment effects. A worked example, in a probabilistic, Bayesian posterior framework, is used to illustrate the alternative computations and to show how parameter uncertainty can be combined with variation between individuals and heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Thompson, S. G. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351 · Cited by 1,017
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation: A Practical Approach
Doubilet, P., Begg, C. B., Weinstein, M. C., Braun, P., & McNeil, B. J. (1985) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x8500500205 · Cited by 860
Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study
Smith, T. C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Thomas, A. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780142408 · Cited by 568
Meta-analysis. Beyond the grand mean?
Smith, G. D., Egger, M., & Phillips, A. N. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7122.1610 · Cited by 174
Cited by
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
Self-citationA Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569
“This may be the parameter of primary interest: for example, the average efficacy of a treatment may be the most relevant parameter for health care providers (Feinstein, 1995; Light, 1987; Ades et al., 2005).”
BackgroundSelf-citationWilmot, E. G., Edwardson, C. L., Achana, F. A., Davies, M. J., Gorely, T., Gray, L. J., Khunti, K., Yates, T., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2012) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-012-2677-z · Cited by 1,789
Turner, R. M., Davey, J., Clarke, M. J., Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. (2012) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dys041 · Cited by 837
Self-citationPower analysis for random-effects meta-analysis
Jackson, D., & Turner, R. (2017) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1240 · Cited by 619
Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Patsopoulos, N. A., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a117 · Cited by 457
Turner, R. M., Jackson, D., Wei, Y., Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6381 · Cited by 410
Self-citationMeta-Analysis of Perceived Stress and Its Association With Incident Coronary Heart Disease
Richardson, S., Shaffer, J. A., Falzon, L., Krupka, D., Davidson, K. W., & Edmondson, D. (2012) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.08.004 · Cited by 349
Caldwell, D. M., Davies, S. R., Hetrick, S. E., Palmer, J. C., Caro, P., López-López, J. A., Gunnell, D., Kidger, J., Thomas, J., French, C., et al. (2019) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30403-1 · Cited by 336
Jansen, J. P., Trikalinos, T., Cappelleri, J. C., Daw, J., Andes, S., Eldessouki, R., & Salanti, G. (2014) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004 · Cited by 319
Prevalence of depression among university students: a systematic review and meta-analysis study
Sarokhani, D., Delpisheh, A., Veisani, Y., Sarokhani, M. T., Manesh, R. E., & Sayehmiri, K. (2013) · Depression Research and Treatment · doi:10.1155/2013/373857 · Cited by 296
Yu, H.-F., Chen, H.-S., Rao, D.-P., & Gong, J. (2016) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000004863 · Cited by 257
Ye, Y., Li, J., & Yuan, Z. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056803 · Cited by 204
Alcohol intake and risk of stroke: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies
Zhang, C., Qin, Y.-Y., Chen, Q., Jiang, H., Chen, X.-Z., Xu, C.-L., Mao, P.-J., He, J., & Zhou, Y.-H. (2014) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.04.225 · Cited by 203
Xie, C., Zhu, R., Tian, Y., & Wang, K. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013983 · Cited by 180
Pelsser, L. M., Frankena, K., Toorman, J., & Rodrigues Pereira, R. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169277 · Cited by 145
Pjrek, E., Friedrich, M.-E., Cambioli, L., Dold, M., Jäger, F., Komorowski, A., Lanzenberger, R., Kasper, S., & Winkler, D. (2020) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000502891 · Cited by 136
Välimäki, M., Anttila, K., Anttila, M., & Lahti, M. (2017) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.8624 · Cited by 110
“A random-effects analysis was used instead of a fixed-effect method, as the former allows the outcomes of studies to vary more than the latter does; a random-effects analysis can be seen as a more natural way of explaining outcomes [43].”
MethodHao, H. Q., Zhang, J. F., He, Q. Q., & Wang, Z. (2019) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2018.10.009 · Cited by 118
Mao, P.-J., Zhang, C., Tang, L., Xian, Y.-Q., Li, Y.-S., Wang, W.-D., Zhu, X.-H., Qiu, H.-L., He, J., & Zhou, Y.-H. (2013) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.08.055 · Cited by 109
Diagnostic Value of CA 19-9 and Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Xing, H., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Tong, M., Hu, H., Huang, C., & Li, D. (2018) · Gastroenterology Research and Practice · doi:10.1155/2018/8704751 · Cited by 109
Zhao, T.-T., Jin, F., Li, J.-G., Xu, Y.-Y., Dong, H.-T., Liu, Q., Xing, P., Zhu, G.-L., Xu, H., & Miao, Z.-F. (2019) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2017.12.006 · Cited by 105
Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in U.S. combat Veterans: a meta-analytic review
Goodson, J., Helstrom, A., Halpern, J. M., Ferenschak, M. P., Gillihan, S. J., & Powers, M. B. (2011) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/02.09.15.16.pr0.109.5.573-599 · Cited by 90
Zhou, Y.-H., Ma, X.-Q., Wu, C., Lu, J., Zhang, S.-S., Guo, J., Wu, S.-Q., Ye, X.-F., Xu, J.-F., & He, J. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039062 · Cited by 84
Fang, H.-J., Zhou, Y.-H., Tian, Y.-J., Du, H.-Y., Sun, Y.-X., & Zhong, L.-Y. (2016) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.04.163 · Cited by 57
Effectiveness of multidisciplinary programmes for clinical pain conditions: an umbrella review.
Dragioti, E., Evangelou, E., Larsson, B., & Gerdle, B. (2018) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/16501977-2377 · Cited by 53
Wang, Q., Jiang, X., Shen, Y., Yao, P., Chen, J., Zhou, Y., Gu, Y., Qian, Z., & Cao, X. (2020) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-020-01721-6 · Cited by 53
Xue, K., Li, F.-F., Chen, Y.-W., Zhou, Y.-H., & He, J. (2017) · European Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.1097/cej.0000000000000231 · Cited by 40
Zhu, H., Zhang, J., Wang, J., Zhao, X., & Gu, M. (2020) · Endocrine · doi:10.1007/s12020-019-02110-9 · Cited by 28
Kodsi, A., Bullock, B., Kennedy, G. A., & Tirlea, L. (2022) · Behavioral Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1080/15402002.2021.1876062 · Cited by 23
Wu, Q., Li, J., Parrott, S., López-López, J. A., Davies, S. R., Caldwell, D. M., Churchill, R. C., Peters, T. J., Lewis, G., Tallon, D., et al. (2020) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.07.008 · Cited by 19
Wei, Y., Liao, H., & Ye, J. (2018) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000010422 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Ades, A. E., Lu, G., & Higgins, J. P. T.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 646-654
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2126852509
- Cited by
- 859
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 8.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
