Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

29-03-2023 | REVIEW

A guide to appropriately planning and conducting meta-analyses: part 2—effect size estimation, heterogeneity and analytic approaches

Authors: Kyle N. Kunze, Jeffrey Kay, Ayoosh Pareek, Jari Dahmen, Benedict U. Nwachukwu, Riley J. Williams III, Jon Karlsson, Darren de SA

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Login to get access

Abstract

Meta-analyses by definition are a subtype of systematic review intended to quantitatively assess the strength of evidence present on an intervention or treatment. Such analyses may use individual-level data or aggregate data to produce a point estimate of an effect, also known as the combined effect, and measure precision of the calculated estimate. The current article will review several important considerations during the analytic phase of a meta-analysis, including selection of effect estimators, heterogeneity and various sub-types of meta-analytic approaches.
Literature
1.
2.
Chaimani A, Mavridis D, Salanti G (2014) A hands-on practical tutorial on performing meta-analysis with Stata. Evid Based Ment Health 17:111–116CrossRefPubMed
3.
Chung Y, Rabe-Hesketh S, Dorie V, Gelman A, Liu J (2013) A Nondegenerate penalized likelihood estimator for variance parameters in multilevel models. Psychometrika 78:685–709CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
6.
7.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2004) Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med 23:1663–1682CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
10.
Higgins JPTTJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of Interventions version 6.0. Undertaking network meta-analyses. Wiley, New York, pp 285–320
11.
12.
Ioannidis JP (2008) Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 14:951–957CrossRefPubMed
13.
Langan D (2022) Assessing heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis. Methods Mol Biol 2345:67–89CrossRefPubMed
14.
Lee CH, Cook S, Lee JS, Han B (2016) Comparison of two meta-analysis methods: inverse-variance-weighted average and weighted sum of Z-scores. Genomics Inform 14:173–180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Leimu R, Koricheva J (2004) Cumulative meta-analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology. Proc Biol Sci 271:1961–1966CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Li SJ, Jiang H, Yang H, Chen W, Peng J, Sun MW et al (2015) The dilemma of heterogeneity tests in meta-analysis: a challenge from a simulation study. PLoS ONE 10:e0127538CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Lin L (2020) Comparison of four heterogeneity measures for meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 26:376–384CrossRefPubMed
18.
Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22:719–748PubMed
19.
McNeish D (2016) On using bayesian methods to address small sample problems. Struct Equ Modeling 23:750–773CrossRef
20.
Melsen WG, Bootsma MC, Rovers MM, Bonten MJ (2014) The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses. Clin Microbiol Infect 20:123–129CrossRefPubMed
21.
Miller JJ (1978) The inverse of the freeman-tukey double arcsine transformation. The Am Stat 32:138–138
22.
Mullen B, Muellerleile P, Bryant B (2001) Cumulative Meta-Analysis: a consideration of indicators of sufficiency and stability. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27:1450–1462CrossRef
23.
Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G (2014) Demystifying fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Evid Based Ment Health 17:53–57CrossRefPubMed
24.
Poole C, Greenland S (1999) Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 150:469–475CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
27.
28.
Sidik K, Jonkman JN (2007) A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Stat Med 26:1964–1981CrossRefPubMed
29.
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Stephenson M, Aromataris E (2015) Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13:196–207CrossRefPubMed
30.
Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, Bender R, Bowden J, Knapp G et al (2016) Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 7:55–79CrossRefPubMed
31.
Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL (2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 1:112–125CrossRefPubMed
32.
Yoneoka D, Henmi M (2019) Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: between-study boundary estimate problem. Stat Med 38:4131–4145CrossRefPubMed
33.
Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P (1985) Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 27:335–371CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zou KH, O’Malley AJ, Mauri L (2007) Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation 115:654–657CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A guide to appropriately planning and conducting meta-analyses: part 2—effect size estimation, heterogeneity and analytic approaches
Authors
Kyle N. Kunze
Jeffrey Kay
Ayoosh Pareek
Jari Dahmen
Benedict U. Nwachukwu
Riley J. Williams III
Jon Karlsson
Darren de SA
Publication date
29-03-2023
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07328-9