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

Systematic review and meta-analysis

TL;DR: In this review the usual methods applied in systematic reviews and meta-analyses are outlined, and the most common procedures for combining studies with binary outcomes are described, illustrating how they can be done using Stata commands.
Journal ArticleDOI

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

TL;DR: The meaning and rationale for each checklist item is explained, and an example of good reporting is included and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are included.
Journal ArticleDOI

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

TL;DR: The PRISMA-P checklist as mentioned in this paper provides 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol, as well as a model example from an existing published protocol.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.

TL;DR: This work studied 125 meta-analyses representative of those performed by clinical investigators to examine empirically how assessment of treatment effect and heterogeneity may differ when different methods are utilized, and presents two exceptions to these observations.
Journal ArticleDOI

The performance of the two‐stage analysis of two‐treatment, two‐period crossover trials

TL;DR: It is concluded that the two-stage analysis for analysing the data from a two-treatment, two-period crossover trial is too potentially misleading to be of practical use.
Reference EntryDOI

Amantadine and rimantadine for preventing and treating influenza A in adults.

TL;DR: Amantadine and rimanadine have comparable effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantADine induces fewer adverse effects than amantadines.
Journal ArticleDOI

Small sample performance of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2 × 2 tables

TL;DR: By simulation, small sample performance in terms of size of ten procedures for testing the homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2 x 2 contingency tables is studied.
Related Papers (5)