Deficits and Remedy of the Standard Random Effects Methods in Meta-analysis
- 1 January 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Georg Thieme Verlag KG in Methods of Information in Medicine
- Vol. 40 (02) , 148-155
- https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1634478
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
Funding Information
- German Research Foundation
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Valid Inference in Random Effects Meta‐AnalysisBiometrics, 1999
- Some Corrections of the Significance Level in Meta-AnalysisBiometrical Journal, 1998
- Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enoughThe Lancet, 1998
- A LIKELIHOOD APPROACH TO META-ANALYSIS WITH RANDOM EFFECTSStatistics in Medicine, 1996
- Some Progress and Problems in Meta-Analysis of Clinical TrialsStatistical Science, 1992
- A general parametric approach to the meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine, 1991
- A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine, 1989
- Computing the Distribution of Quadratic Forms in Normal VariablesBiometrika, 1961