Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Estimated effects vary across studies, partly because of random sampling error and partly because of heterogeneity. In meta-analysis, the fraction of variance that is due to heterogeneity is estimated by the statistic I2. We calculate the bias of I2, focusing on the situation where the number of studies in the meta-analysis is small. Small meta-analyses are common; in the Cochrane Library, the median number of studies per meta-analysis is 7 or fewer.

Methods

We use Mathematica software to calculate the expectation and bias of I2.

Results

I2 has a substantial bias when the number of studies is small. The bias is positive when the true fraction of heterogeneity is small, but the bias is typically negative when the true fraction of heterogeneity is large. For example, with 7 studies and no true heterogeneity, I2 will overestimate heterogeneity by an average of 12 percentage points, but with 7 studies and 80 percent true heterogeneity, I2 can underestimate heterogeneity by an average of 28 percentage points. Biases of 12–28 percentage points are not trivial when one considers that, in the Cochrane Library, the median I2 estimate is 21 percent.

Conclusions

The point estimate I2 should be interpreted cautiously when a meta-analysis has few studies. In small meta-analyses, confidence intervals should supplement or replace the biased point estimate I2.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Melsen WG, Bootsma MCJ, Rovers MM, Bonten MJM. The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):123–9.CrossRefPubMed Melsen WG, Bootsma MCJ, Rovers MM, Bonten MJM. The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):123–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JP. “Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis”. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JP. “Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis”. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.CrossRef Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):841–56.CrossRefPubMed Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):841–56.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.CrossRefPubMed Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Koedel C. An empirical analysis of teacher spillover effects in secondary school. Econ Educ Rev. 2009;28(6):682–92.CrossRef Koedel C. An empirical analysis of teacher spillover effects in secondary school. Econ Educ Rev. 2009;28(6):682–92.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Koedel C, Parsons E, Podgursky M, Ehle M. Teacher preparation programs and teacher quality: are there real differences across programs? Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research; 2012. CALDER working paper 63. Koedel C, Parsons E, Podgursky M, Ehle M. Teacher preparation programs and teacher quality: are there real differences across programs? Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research; 2012. CALDER working paper 63.
9.
go back to reference von Hippel PT, Osborne C, Lincove A, Bellows L, Mills N. The challenges of seeking exceptional teacher preparation programs among many noisy estimates. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2014. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2506935. von Hippel PT, Osborne C, Lincove A, Bellows L, Mills N. The challenges of seeking exceptional teacher preparation programs among many noisy estimates. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2014. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2506935.
10.
go back to reference Kivimäki M, Batty GD, Ferrie JE, Kawachi I. Cumulative meta-analysis of job strain and CHD. Epidemiology. 2014;25(3):464–5.CrossRefPubMed Kivimäki M, Batty GD, Ferrie JE, Kawachi I. Cumulative meta-analysis of job strain and CHD. Epidemiology. 2014;25(3):464–5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Aune D, Saugstad OD, Henriksen T, Tonstad S. Physical activity and the risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2014;25(3):331–43.CrossRefPubMed Aune D, Saugstad OD, Henriksen T, Tonstad S. Physical activity and the risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2014;25(3):331–43.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, Wolk A, Orsini N. Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose–response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(8):763–75.CrossRefPubMed Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, Wolk A, Orsini N. Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose–response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(8):763–75.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Kim Y, Je Y. Dietary fiber intake and total mortality: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(6):565–73.CrossRefPubMed Kim Y, Je Y. Dietary fiber intake and total mortality: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(6):565–73.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):486–504.CrossRef Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):486–504.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137–59.CrossRef Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137–59.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Schumacher M. “Undue reliance on I2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead”. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Schumacher M. “Undue reliance on I2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead”. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Biggerstaff BJ, Jackson D. The exact distribution of Cochran’s heterogeneity statistic in one-way random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2008;27(29):6093–110.CrossRefPubMed Biggerstaff BJ, Jackson D. The exact distribution of Cochran’s heterogeneity statistic in one-way random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2008;27(29):6093–110.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 2001;6(3):203–17.CrossRefPubMed Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 2001;6(3):203–17.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2000;19(13):1707–28.CrossRefPubMed Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2000;19(13):1707–28.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Bock ME, Judge GG, Yancey TA. A simple form for the inverse moments of non-central χ2 andF random variables and certain confluent hypergeometric functions. J Econometrics. 1984;25(1–2):217–34.CrossRef Bock ME, Judge GG, Yancey TA. A simple form for the inverse moments of non-central χ2 andF random variables and certain confluent hypergeometric functions. J Econometrics. 1984;25(1–2):217–34.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):818–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):818–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261–93.CrossRef Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261–93.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Chung Y, Rabe-Hesketh S, Choi I-H. Avoiding zero between-study variance estimates in random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2013;32(23):4071–89.CrossRefPubMed Chung Y, Rabe-Hesketh S, Choi I-H. Avoiding zero between-study variance estimates in random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2013;32(23):4071–89.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Hartung J, Knapp G. On confidence intervals for the among-group variance in the one-way random effects model with unequal error variances. J Stat Plann Infer. 2005;127(1–2):157–77.CrossRef Hartung J, Knapp G. On confidence intervals for the among-group variance in the one-way random effects model with unequal error variances. J Stat Plann Infer. 2005;127(1–2):157–77.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Ray KK, Seshasai SRK, Erqou S, Sever P, Jukema JW, Ford I, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65,229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1024–31.CrossRefPubMed Ray KK, Seshasai SRK, Erqou S, Sever P, Jukema JW, Ford I, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65,229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1024–31.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses
Publication date
01-12-2015
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015 Go to the issue