Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study
Open Access
- 24 February 2011
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Vol. 11 (1) , 22
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-22
Abstract
Dealing with heterogeneity in meta-analyses is often tricky, and there is only limited advice for authors on what to do. We investigated how authors addressed different degrees of heterogeneity, in particular whether they used a fixed effect model, which assumes that all the included studies are estimating the same true effect, or a random effects model where this is not assumed.This publication has 38 references indexed in Scilit:
- Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may misleadBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2008
- Simpson's paradox visualized: The example of the Rosiglitazone meta-analysisBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2008
- Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart diseasePublished by Wiley ,2006
- Vitamin A supplementation for reducing the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV infectionPublished by Wiley ,2005
- Single dose oral rofecoxib for postoperative painPublished by Wiley ,2004
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta‐analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomesStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Restricted versus liberal oxygen exposure for preventing morbidity and mortality in preterm or low birth weight infantsPublished by Wiley ,2001
- Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, PONV and pain after abdominal surgeryPublished by Wiley ,2001
- What do dentists know about statistics?European Journal of Oral Sciences, 1988