Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta‐regression
Top Cited Papers
- 18 May 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 23 (11) , 1663-1682
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1752
Abstract
Meta‐regression has become a commonly used tool for investigating whether study characteristics may explain heterogeneity of results among studies in a systematic review. However, such explorations of heterogeneity are prone to misleading false‐positive results. It is unclear how many covariates can reliably be investigated, and how this might depend on the number of studies, the extent of the heterogeneity and the relative weights awarded to the different studies. Our objectives in this paper are two‐fold. First, we use simulation to investigate the type I error rate of meta‐regression in various situations. Second, we propose a permutation test approach for assessing the true statistical significance of an observed meta‐regression finding. Standard meta‐regression methods suffer from substantially inflated false‐positive rates when heterogeneity is present, when there are few studies and when there are many covariates. These are typical of situations in which meta‐regressions are routinely employed. We demonstrate in particular that fixed effect meta‐regression is likely to produce seriously misleading results in the presence of heterogeneity. The permutation test appropriately tempers the statistical significance of meta‐regression findings. We recommend its use before a statistically significant relationship is claimed from a standard meta‐regression analysis. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Improved tests for a random effects meta‐regression with a single covariateStatistics in Medicine, 2003
- How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?Statistics in Medicine, 2002
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Testing continuous moderators in meta‐analysis: A comparison of proceduresBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1998
- Testing for Dichotomous Moderators in Meta-AnalysisThe Journal of Experimental Education, 1998
- Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimatesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- A meta-analysis methodology for utilizing study-level covariate information from clinical trialsCommunications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 1994
- No Adjustments Are Needed for Multiple ComparisonsEpidemiology, 1990
- Bayes Methods for Combining the Results of Cancer Studies in Humans and other SpeciesJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1983