Multivariate meta‐analysis: Potential and promise
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 26 January 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 30 (20) , 2481-2498
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4172
Abstract
The multivariate random effects model is a generalization of the standard univariate model. Multivariate meta‐analysis is becoming more commonly used and the techniques and related computer software, although continually under development, are now in place. In order to raise awareness of the multivariate methods, and discuss their advantages and disadvantages, we organized a one day ‘Multivariate meta‐analysis’ event at the Royal Statistical Society. In addition to disseminating the most recent developments, we also received an abundance of comments, concerns, insights, critiques and encouragement. This article provides a balanced account of the day's discourse. By giving others the opportunity to respond to our assessment, we hope to ensure that the various view points and opinions are aired before multivariate meta‐analysis simply becomes another widely used de facto method without any proper consideration of it by the medical statistics community. We describe the areas of application that multivariate meta‐analysis has found, the methods available, the difficulties typically encountered and the arguments for and against the multivariate methods, using four representative but contrasting examples. We conclude that the multivariate methods can be useful, and in particular can provide estimates with better statistical properties, but also that these benefits come at the price of making more assumptions which do not result in better inference in every case. Although there is evidence that multivariate meta‐analysis has considerable potential, it must be even more carefully applied than its univariate counterpart in practice. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 73 references indexed in Scilit:
- Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studiesThe Lancet, 2010
- A Systematic Review of p53 as a Prognostic Factor of Survival in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Four Main Anatomical Subsites of the Head and NeckCancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2010
- Systematically missing confounders in individual participant data meta‐analysis of observational cohort studiesStatistics in Medicine, 2009
- Meta‐analysis of diagnostic test studies using individual patient data and aggregate dataStatistics in Medicine, 2008
- Meta‐analysis of summary survival curve dataStatistics in Medicine, 2008
- A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-AnalysisJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2008
- CoPlot: A tool for visualizing multivariate data in medicineStatistics in Medicine, 2007
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regressionStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986