The meta-analysis of multi-centre trials can be based on either "xed or random e!ect models. This paper argues for the general use of random e!ect models, and illustrates the value of non-parametric maximum likelihood (NPML) analysis of such trials. The same general approach uni"es administrative &l
INCORPORATING VARIABILITY IN ESTIMATES OF HETEROGENEITY IN THE RANDOM EFFECTS MODEL IN META-ANALYSIS
β Scribed by B. J. BIGGERSTAFF; R. L. TWEEDIE
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1997
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 294 KB
- Volume
- 16
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0277-6715
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
When combining results from separate investigations in a meta-analysis, random effects methods enable the modelling of differences between studies by incorporating a heterogeneity parameter that accounts explicitly for across-study variation. We develop a simple form for the variance of Cochran's homogeneity statistic Q, leading to interval estimation of utilizing an approximating distribution for Q; this enables us to extend the point estimation of DerSimonian and Laird. We also develop asymptotic likelihood methods and compared them with this method. We then use these approximating distributions to give a new method of calculating the weight given to the individual studies' results when estimating the overall mean which takes into account variation in these point estimates of . Two examples illustrate the methods presented, where we show that the new weighting scheme is between the standard fixed and random effects models in down-weighting the results of large studies and up-weighting those of small studies.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
In clinical trials where patients are randomized between two treatment arms, not all patients comply with the treatment they were randomly assigned to. The reasons for (non)compliance may be associated with the outcome variable and thereby act as confounders. The standard way of analysing such trial
This paper explores the implications of measurement error in the analysis of compliance}response relationships in data from randomized trials. Given that compliance measures are rarely, if ever, error-free indicators of exposure it is argued that both the designs for the collection of compliance dat