The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus Values and Weighting Factors
Open accessAbstract
A method is presented for the statistical analysis of sets of data which are assembled from multiple experiments. The analysis recognizes the existence of both within group and between group variabilities, and calculates appropriate weighting factors based on the observed variability for each group. The weighting factors are used to calculate a "best" consensus value from the overall experiment. The technique for obtaining the consensus value is applicable to either the determination of the weighted average value, or to the parameters associated with a weighted least squares regression problem. The calculations are made by using an iterative technique with a truncated Taylor series expansion. The calculations are straightforward, and are easily programmed on a desktop computer. An examination of the observed variabilities, both within groups and between groups, leads to considerable insight into the overall experiment and greatly aids in the design of future experiments.
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
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Cited by
How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial
Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2019) · Evidence Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 · Cited by 5,827
Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update
DerSimonian, R., & Kacker, R. (2007) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004 · Cited by 2,374
The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group, Sterne, J. A. C., Murthy, S., Diaz, J. V., Slutsky, A. S., Villar, J., Angus, D. C., Annane, D., Azevedo, L. C. P., Berwanger, O., et al. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17023 · Cited by 2,257
Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis
Veroniki, A. A., Jackson, D., Viechtbauer, W., Bender, R., Bowden, J., Knapp, G., Kuss, O., Higgins, J. P., Langan, D., & Salanti, G. (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1164 · Cited by 1,685
A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses
Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., Jackson, D., Bowden, J., Veroniki, A. A., Kontopantelis, E., Viechtbauer, W., & Simmonds, M. (2019) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1316 · Cited by 1,074
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.
Scherer, R. W., Langenberg, P., & von Elm, E. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000005.pub3 · Cited by 997
Röver, C., Knapp, G., & Friede, T. (2015) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0091-1 · Cited by 527
Small studies are more heterogeneous than large ones: a meta-meta-analysis
IntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Borm, G. F., & Goeman, J. J. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.017 · Cited by 314
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts
Scherer, R. W., Meerpohl, J. J., Pfeifer, N., Schmucker, C., Schwarzer, G., & von Elm, E. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000005.pub4 · Cited by 307
Evaluation of various estimators for standardized mean difference in meta‐analysis
Lin, L., & Aloe, A. M. (2021) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.8781 · Cited by 297
Methods for evidence synthesis in the case of very few studies
Bender, R., Friede, T., Koch, A., Kuss, O., Schlattmann, P., Schwarzer, G., & Skipka, G. (2018) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1297 · Cited by 250
Veroniki, A. A., Jackson, D., Bender, R., Kuss, O., Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., Knapp, G., & Salanti, G. (2019) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1319 · Cited by 236
A comparison of procedures to test for moderators in mixed-effects meta-regression models
Viechtbauer, W., López-López, J. A., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2015) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000023 · Cited by 241
Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., & Simmonds, M. (2017) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1198 · Cited by 149
Marijuana Use, Respiratory Symptoms, and Pulmonary Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Ghasemiesfe, M., Ravi, D., Vali, M., Korenstein, D., Arjomandi, M., Frank, J., Austin, P. C., & Keyhani, S. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0522 · Cited by 117
Bayesian estimation in random effects meta‐analysis using a non‐informative prior
Bodnar, O., Link, A., Arendacká, B., Possolo, A., & Elster, C. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7156 · Cited by 73
Ghezzi, E. S., Sharman, R. L. S., Selvanayagam, J. B., Psaltis, P. J., Sanders, P., Astley, J. M., Knayfati, S., Batra, V., & Keage, H. A. D. (2023) · Europace · doi:10.1093/europace/euad130 · Cited by 73
Pabst, A., Proksch, S., Médé, B., Comstock, D. C., Ross, J. M., & Balasubramaniam, R. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104587 · Cited by 68
Georgescu, R., Fodor, L. A., Dobrean, A., & Cristea, I. A. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291719001855 · Cited by 53
Pravastatin in preeclampsia: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Mészáros, B., Veres, D. S., Nagyistók, L., Somogyi, A., Rosta, K., Herold, Z., Kukor, Z., & Valent, S. (2023) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.1076372 · Cited by 45
Combined result and associated uncertainty from interlaboratory evaluations based on the ISO Guide
Kacker, R., Datla, R., & Parr, A. (2002) · Metrologia · doi:10.1088/0026-1394/39/3/5 · Cited by 36
Azarpazhooh, M. R., Avan, A., Cipriano, L. E., Munoz, D. G., Erfanian, M., Amiri, A., Stranges, S., & Hachinski, V. (2020) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2019.101002 · Cited by 32
Ibanez, A., Maito, M., Botero-Rodríguez, F., Fittipaldi, S., Coronel, C., Migeot, J., Lacroix, A., Lawlor, B., Duran-Aniotz, C., Baez, S., et al. (2024) · Nature Aging · doi:10.1038/s43587-024-00648-6 · Cited by 30
Oliva, V., Fanelli, G., Kasper, S., Zohar, J., Souery, D., Montgomery, S., Albani, D., Forloni, G., Ferentinos, P., Rujescu, D., et al. (2022) · International Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1097/yic.0000000000000384 · Cited by 29
Reyes-Farias, C. I., Reategui-Diaz, M., Romani-Romani, F., & Prokop, L. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295059 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Paule, R. C., & Mandel, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards
- Published
- 1982-09
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 377
- ISSN
- 0160-1741 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128640268
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.
