scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract
Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Controlled Interventions to Reduce Burnout in Physicians A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

TL;DR: Evidence from this meta-analysis suggests that recent intervention programs for burnout in physicians were associated with small benefits that may be boosted by adoption of organization-directed approaches, providing support for the view that burnout is a problem of the whole health care organization, rather than individuals.
Journal ArticleDOI

Depression and Diabetes Treatment Nonadherence: A Meta-Analysis

TL;DR: Depression is common in patients with diabetes and is associated with worse treatment outcomes, but its relationship to treatment adherence has not been systematically reviewed, and treatment nonadherence may represent an important pathway between depression and worse diabetes clinical outcomes.
Journal ArticleDOI

Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors

TL;DR: Return to sport varied according to different physical functioning and contextual factors, which could warrant additional emphasis in postoperative rehabilitation programmes to maximise participation.
Journal ArticleDOI

How Many Studies Do You Need? A Primer on Statistical Power for Meta-Analysis

TL;DR: The authors discuss the value of confidence intervals, show how they could be used in addition to or instead of retrospective power analysis, and demonstrate that confidence intervals can convey information more effectively in some situations than power analyses alone.
Journal ArticleDOI

Metabolic mediators of the effects of body-mass index, overweight, and obesity on coronary heart disease and stroke: A pooled analysis of 97 prospective cohorts with 1·8 million participants

TL;DR: How much of the effects of BMI on coronary heart disease and stroke are mediated through blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose, and how much is independent of these factors is quantified.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis

TL;DR: It is concluded that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity, and one or both should be presented in publishedMeta-an analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
Journal ArticleDOI

The combination of estimates from different experiments.

TL;DR: The problem of making a combined estimate has been discussed previously by Cochran and Yates and Cochran (1937) for agricultural experiments, and by Bliss (1952) for bioassays in different laboratories as discussed by the authors.
Journal ArticleDOI

Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: An overview of the randomised trials

TL;DR: The absolute improvement in recurrence was greater during the first 5 years, whereas the improvement in survival grew steadily larger throughout the first 10 years, and these benefits appeared to be largely irrespective of age, menopausal status, daily tamoxifen dose, and of whether chemotherapy had been given to both groups.
Journal Article

Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group

Anthony Howell
- 16 May 1998 - 
TL;DR: There have been many randomised trials of adjuvant tamoxifen among women with early breast cancer, and an updated overview of their results is presented in this paper, which approximately doubles the amount of evidence from trials of about 5 years of tamoxifier and, taking all trials together, on events occurring more than 5 years after randomisation.
Journal ArticleDOI

Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluated standard error, precision (inverse of standard error), variance, inverse of variance, sample size and log sample size (vertical axis) and log odds ratio, log risk ratio and risk difference (horizontal axis).
Related Papers (5)