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
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
TL;DR: The choice overload hypothesis states that an increase in the number of options to choose from may lead to adverse consequences such as a decrease in the motivation to choose or the satisfaction with the finally chosen option as discussed by the authors.
Journal ArticleDOI
Are Metabolically Healthy Overweight and Obesity Benign Conditions?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focused on a unique subgroup of overweight and obese individuals who have normal metabolic features despite increased adiposity, but it remains unclear whether metabolic phenotype modifies the morbidity and mortality associated with higher body mass index (BMI).
Journal ArticleDOI
Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis
Peter Jüni,Linda Nartey,Stephan Reichenbach,Stephan Reichenbach,Rebekka Sterchi,Paul Dieppe,Matthias Egger,Matthias Egger +7 more
TL;DR: The findings indicate that rofecoxib should have been withdrawn several years earlier and the reasons why manufacturer and drug licensing authorities did not continuously monitor and summarise the accumulating evidence need to be clarified.
Journal ArticleDOI
Impact of Intraoperative Stimulation Brain Mapping on Glioma Surgery Outcome: A Meta-Analysis
Philip C. De Witt Hamer,Santiago Gil Robles,Aeilko H. Zwinderman,Hugues Duffau,Mitchel S. Berger +4 more
TL;DR: Glioma resections using ISM are associated with fewer late severe neurologic deficits and more extensive resection, and they involve eloquent locations more frequently, indicating that ISM should be universally implemented as standard of care for glioma surgery.
Journal ArticleDOI
Mind-Sets Matter: A Meta-Analytic Review of Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation.
TL;DR: Meta-analytic results demonstrated that implicit theories predict distinct self-regulatory processes, which, in turn, predict goal achievement.
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
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).