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 ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research Article

Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies

Authors: Christian Röver, Guido Knapp, Tim Friede

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

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Random-effects meta-analysis is commonly performed by first deriving an estimate of the between-study variation, the heterogeneity, and subsequently using this as the basis for combining results, i.e., for estimating the effect, the figure of primary interest. The heterogeneity variance estimate however is commonly associated with substantial uncertainty, especially in contexts where there are only few studies available, such as in small populations and rare diseases.

Methods

Confidence intervals and tests for the effect may be constructed via a simple normal approximation, or via a Student-t distribution, using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) approach, which additionally uses a refined estimator of variance of the effect estimator. The modified Knapp-Hartung method (mKH) applies an ad hoc correction and has been proposed to prevent counterintuitive effects and to yield more conservative inference. We performed a simulation study to investigate the behaviour of the standard HKSJ and modified mKH procedures in a range of circumstances, with a focus on the common case of meta-analysis based on only a few studies.

Results

The standard HKSJ procedure works well when the treatment effect estimates to be combined are of comparable precision, but nominal error levels are exceeded when standard errors vary considerably between studies (e.g. due to variations in study size). Application of the modification on the other hand yields more conservative results with error rates closer to the nominal level. Differences are most pronounced in the common case of few studies of varying size or precision.

Conclusions

Use of the modified mKH procedure is recommended, especially when only a few studies contribute to the meta-analysis and the involved studies’ precisions (standard errors) vary.
Literature
1.
Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press; 1985.
2.
Hartung J, Knapp G, Sinha BK. Statistical Meta-analysis with Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley; 2008.CrossRef
3.
4.
5.
6.
Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, Bender R, Bowden J, Knapp, G et al.Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2015. doi:10.​1002/​jrsm.​1164.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Method. 2014; 14:25. doi:10.​1186/​1471-2288-14-25.CrossRef
13.
14.
15.
16.
European Commission. Communication from the Commission on Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Off J Eur Union. 2003; 46(C178):2–8.
17.
Gagne JJ, Thompson L, O’Keefe K, Kesselheim AS. Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare diseases: methodological review. BMJ. 2014; 349:6802. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​g6802.CrossRef
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Raudenbush SW. Analyzing effect sizes: random-effects models In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 2009. p. 295–315.
28.
Paule RC, Mandel J. Consensus values and weighting factors. J Res Natl Bur Stand. 1982; 87(5):377–85.CrossRef
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Localio AR. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med. 2007; 26(1):53–77. doi:10.​1002/​sim.​2528.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Kuß O. Statistical methods for meta-analyses including information from studies without any events—add nothing to nothing and succeed nevertheless. Stat Med. 2015; 34(7):1097–116. doi:10.​1002/​sim.​6383.CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Metadata
Title
Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies
Authors
Christian Röver
Guido Knapp
Tim Friede
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0091-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research Article

Comparison of different approaches to estimating age standardized net survival

Research article

Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review

Research article

Sample selection, recruitment and participation rates in health examination surveys in Europe – experience from seven national surveys

Research article

Participation rates, response bias and response behaviours in the community survey of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study (SwiSCI)

TECHNICAL ADVANCE

A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies

Research article

Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention