The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: When multiple endpoints are of interest in evidence synthesis, a multivariate meta-analysis can jointly synthesise those endpoints and utilise their correlation. A multivariate random-effects meta-analysis must incorporate and estimate the between-study correlation (rhoB). METHODS: In this paper we assess maximum likelihood estimation of a general normal model and a generalised model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis (BRMA). We consider two applied examples, one involving a diagnostic marker and the other a surrogate outcome. These motivate a simulation study where estimation properties from BRMA are compared with those from two separate univariate random-effects meta-analyses (URMAs), the traditional approach. RESULTS: The normal BRMA model estimates rhoB as -1 in both applied examples. Analytically we show this is due to the maximum likelihood estimator sensibly truncating the between-study covariance matrix on the boundary of its parameter space. Our simulations reveal this commonly occurs when the number of studies is small or the within-study variation is relatively large; it also causes upwardly biased between-study variance estimates, which are inflated to compensate for the restriction on rhoB. Importantly, this does not induce any systematic bias in the pooled estimates and produces conservative standard errors and mean-square errors. Furthermore, the normal BRMA is preferable to two normal URMAs; the mean-square error and standard error of pooled estimates is generally smaller in the BRMA, especially given data missing at random. For meta-analysis of proportions we then show that a generalised BRMA model is better still. This correctly uses a binomial rather than normal distribution, and produces better estimates than the normal BRMA and also two generalised URMAs; however the model may sometimes not converge due to difficulties estimating rhoB. CONCLUSION: A BRMA model offers numerous advantages over separate univariate synthesises; this paper highlights some of these benefits in both a normal and generalised modelling framework, and examines the estimation of between-study correlation to aid practitioners.
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
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 · Cited by 2,225
Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis
Copas, J. (2000) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.247 · Cited by 503
A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies
Sidik, K., & Jonkman, J. N. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2688 · Cited by 380
A multivariate mixed linear model for meta-analysis.
Kalaian, H. A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.3.227 · Cited by 229
Nam, I., Mengersen, K., & Garthwaite, P. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1410 · Cited by 153
Cited by
Burgess, S., Dudbridge, F., & Thompson, S. G. (2016) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6835 · Cited by 1,153
Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wacker, C., Prkno, A., Brunkhorst, F. M., & Schlattmann, P. (2013) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(12)70323-7 · Cited by 1,198
Reducing and meta-analysing estimates from distributed lag non-linear models
Gasparrini, A., & Armstrong, B. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-1 · Cited by 1,081
Stijnen, T., Hamza, T. H., & Özdemir, P. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4040 · Cited by 757
Meta‐Analysis in Medical Research: The Handbook for the Understanding and Practice of Meta‐Analysis
(2005) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470994894 · Cited by 687
Metadata
- Authors
- Riley, R. D., Abrams, K. R., Sutton, A. J., Lambert, P. C., & Thompson, J. R.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2007-01-12
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-3
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1594588774
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 16.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-7-3
- The paper
- Riley, R. D., Abrams, K. R., Sutton, A. J., Lambert, P. C., & Thompson, J. R. (2007). Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-3
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.