Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Comparison of statistical inferences from the DerSimonian-Laird and alternative random-effects model meta-analyses - an empirical assessment of 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{c972f8beb2304ab5b71ff69843b510f6,
title = "Comparison of statistical inferences from the DerSimonian-Laird and alternative random-effects model meta-analyses - an empirical assessment of 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses",
abstract = "In random-effects model meta-analysis, the conventional DerSimonian-Laird (DL) estimator typically underestimates the between-trial variance. Alternative variance estimators have been proposed to address this bias. This study aims to empirically compare statistical inferences from random-effects model meta-analyses on the basis of the DL estimator and four alternative estimators, as well as distributional assumptions (normal distribution and t-distribution) about the pooled intervention effect. We evaluated the discrepancies of p-values, 95{\%} confidence intervals (CIs) in statistically significant meta-analyses, and the degree (percentage) of statistical heterogeneity (e.g. I(2)) across 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses. In total, 414 of the 920 meta-analyses were statistically significant with the DL meta-analysis, and 506 were not. Compared with the DL estimator, the four alternative estimators yielded p-values and CIs that could be interpreted as discordant in up to 11.6{\%} or 6{\%} of the included meta-analyses pending whether a normal distribution or a t-distribution of the intervention effect estimates were assumed. Large discrepancies were observed for the measures of degree of heterogeneity when comparing DL with each of the four alternative estimators. Estimating the degree (percentage) of heterogeneity on the basis of less biased between-trial variance estimators seems preferable to current practice. Disclosing inferential sensitivity of p-values and CIs may also be necessary when borderline significant results have substantial impact on the conclusion. Copyright {\circledC} 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
author = "Kristian Thorlund and J{\o}rn Wetterslev and Tahany Awad and Lehana Thabane and Christian Gluud",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1002/jrsm.53",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "238--253",
journal = "Research Synthesis Methods",
issn = "1759-2879",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of statistical inferences from the DerSimonian-Laird and alternative random-effects model meta-analyses - an empirical assessment of 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses

AU - Thorlund, Kristian

AU - Wetterslev, Jørn

AU - Awad, Tahany

AU - Thabane, Lehana

AU - Gluud, Christian

N1 - Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - In random-effects model meta-analysis, the conventional DerSimonian-Laird (DL) estimator typically underestimates the between-trial variance. Alternative variance estimators have been proposed to address this bias. This study aims to empirically compare statistical inferences from random-effects model meta-analyses on the basis of the DL estimator and four alternative estimators, as well as distributional assumptions (normal distribution and t-distribution) about the pooled intervention effect. We evaluated the discrepancies of p-values, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in statistically significant meta-analyses, and the degree (percentage) of statistical heterogeneity (e.g. I(2)) across 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses. In total, 414 of the 920 meta-analyses were statistically significant with the DL meta-analysis, and 506 were not. Compared with the DL estimator, the four alternative estimators yielded p-values and CIs that could be interpreted as discordant in up to 11.6% or 6% of the included meta-analyses pending whether a normal distribution or a t-distribution of the intervention effect estimates were assumed. Large discrepancies were observed for the measures of degree of heterogeneity when comparing DL with each of the four alternative estimators. Estimating the degree (percentage) of heterogeneity on the basis of less biased between-trial variance estimators seems preferable to current practice. Disclosing inferential sensitivity of p-values and CIs may also be necessary when borderline significant results have substantial impact on the conclusion. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AB - In random-effects model meta-analysis, the conventional DerSimonian-Laird (DL) estimator typically underestimates the between-trial variance. Alternative variance estimators have been proposed to address this bias. This study aims to empirically compare statistical inferences from random-effects model meta-analyses on the basis of the DL estimator and four alternative estimators, as well as distributional assumptions (normal distribution and t-distribution) about the pooled intervention effect. We evaluated the discrepancies of p-values, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in statistically significant meta-analyses, and the degree (percentage) of statistical heterogeneity (e.g. I(2)) across 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses. In total, 414 of the 920 meta-analyses were statistically significant with the DL meta-analysis, and 506 were not. Compared with the DL estimator, the four alternative estimators yielded p-values and CIs that could be interpreted as discordant in up to 11.6% or 6% of the included meta-analyses pending whether a normal distribution or a t-distribution of the intervention effect estimates were assumed. Large discrepancies were observed for the measures of degree of heterogeneity when comparing DL with each of the four alternative estimators. Estimating the degree (percentage) of heterogeneity on the basis of less biased between-trial variance estimators seems preferable to current practice. Disclosing inferential sensitivity of p-values and CIs may also be necessary when borderline significant results have substantial impact on the conclusion. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

U2 - 10.1002/jrsm.53

DO - 10.1002/jrsm.53

M3 - Journal article

VL - 2

SP - 238

EP - 253

JO - Research Synthesis Methods

JF - Research Synthesis Methods

SN - 1759-2879

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 36768422