Combining heterogenous studies using the random-effects model is a mistake and leads to inconclusive meta-analyses
- 21 April 2010
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 64 (2) , 119-123
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.009
Abstract
No abstract availableThis publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- A treatment should be evaluated by small trialsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- The evidence provided by a single trial is less reliable than its statistical analysis suggestsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- The influence of methodologic quality on the conclusion of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapyInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2009
- Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandonedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studiesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2005
- Correlation of Quality Measures With Estimates of Treatment Effect in Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled TrialsJAMA, 2002
- Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-AnalysesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutionsBiostatistics, 2001
- Publication and related bias in meta-analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000
- Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997