Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2001; 40(02): 148-155
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634478
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Deficits and Remedy of the Standard Random Effects Methods in Meta-analysis

S. Ziegler
1   Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany
2   Medizinischer Dienst der Spitzenverbände der Krankenkassen e.V. (MDS), Essen, Germany
,
A. Koch
1   Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany
3   Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM), Berlin, Germany
,
N. Victor
1   Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany
› Author AffiliationsThis research is partially supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG-Grant: Vi 107/4).
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The random effects model is often used in meta-analyses. A corresponding significance test based on a normal approximation has been established. Its type I error is derived in this article by theoretical considerations and computer simulations. The test can be conservative as well as unacceptably anti-conservative. The anti-conservatism increases with the increasing number of patients and the decreasing number of studies. A modification is proposed, which keeps the nominal level asymptotically as the number of patients approaches infinity. Simulations show that the modified test is often conservative, but its conservatism is small in those situations where the standard test is highly anti-conservative.

Keywords

Meta-analysis - Multi-center Study - Random Effects Model - Type I Error - Odds Ratio
 

  • References

  • 1 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Contr Clin Trial 1986; 7: 177-88.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Larholt K, Gelber RD. Heterogeneity in meta-analysis: A simulation study of fixed effect and random effect methods. Harvard School Publ Health, Dept Biostatistics; (unpublished), Boston: 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Böckenhoff A, Hartung J. Some corrections of the significance level in meta-analysis. Biometrical J 1998; 40: 937-47.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Larholt K, Tsiatis AA, Gelber RD. Variability of coverage probabilities when applying a random effects methodology for meta-analysis. Harvard School Publ Health, Dept Biostatistics; (unpublished), Boston: 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Follmann DA, Proschan MA. Valid inference in random effects meta-analysis. Bio-metrics 1999; 55: 732-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hartung J. An alternative method for meta-analysis. Biometrical J 1999; 41: 901-16.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1665-77.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lau J, Ioanides JPA, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998; 351: 123-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie RL. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1997; 16: 753-68.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Koch A, Bouges S, Ziegler S, Dinkel H, Daures JP, Victor N. Low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis after major surgical intervention: update of previous meta-analyses. Brit J Surgery 1997; 84: 750-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ziegler S. Meta-Analyse im Modell mit festen und zufälligen Effekten. Dissertation University Heidelberg; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Ziegler S, Victor N. Gefahren der Standard-methoden für Meta-Analysen bei Vorliegen von Heterogenität. Inform Biometrie Epidemiol Med Biol 1999; 30: 131-40.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Berlin JA, Laird NM, Sacks HS. et al. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials. Stat Med 1989; 8: 141-51.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects. Stat Med 1996; 15: 619-29.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Some progress and problems in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Stat Sci 1992; 7: 227-36.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Victor N. The challenge of meta-analysis: Indications and contra-indications for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 5-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Imhof JP. Computing the distribution of quadratic forms in normal variables. Biometrika 1961; 48: 419-26.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar