Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)
Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis
R J Hardy et al. Stat Med. 1998.
Abstract
The investigation of heterogeneity is a crucial part of any meta-analysis. While it has been stated that the test for heterogeneity has low power, this has not been well quantified. Moreover the assumptions of normality implicit in the standard methods of meta-analysis are often not scrutinized in practice. Here we simulate how the power of the test for heterogeneity depends on the number of studies included, the total information (that is total weight or inverse variance) available and the distribution of weights among the different studies. We show that the power increases with the total information available rather than simply the number of studies, and that it is substantially lowered if, as is quite common in practice, one study comprises a large proportion of the total information. We also describe normal plots that are useful in assessing whether the data conform to a fixed effect or random effects model, together with appropriate tests, and give an application to the analysis of a multi-centre trial of blood pressure reduction. We conclude that the test of heterogeneity should not be the sole determinant of model choice in meta-analysis, and inspection of relevant normal plots, as well as clinical insight, may be more relevant to both the investigation and modelling of heterogeneity.
Similar articles
- [Statistical analysis of community-based studies -- presentation and comparison of possible solutions with reference to statistical meta-analytic methods].
Twardella D, Bruckner T, Blettner M. Twardella D, et al. Gesundheitswesen. 2005 Jan;67(1):48-55. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-813834. Gesundheitswesen. 2005. PMID: 15672306 German. - Use of a random effects meta-analysis in the design and analysis of a new clinical trial.
Jones HE, Ades AE, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ. Jones HE, et al. Stat Med. 2018 Dec 30;37(30):4665-4679. doi: 10.1002/sim.7948. Epub 2018 Sep 6. Stat Med. 2018. PMID: 30187505 Free PMC article. - Evaluation of the Normality Assumption in Meta-Analyses.
Wang CC, Lee WC. Wang CC, et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2020 Mar 2;189(3):235-242. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz261. Am J Epidemiol. 2020. PMID: 31781756 - Randomized controlled trials of blood pressure lowering in hypertension: a critical reappraisal.
Zanchetti A, Thomopoulos C, Parati G. Zanchetti A, et al. Circ Res. 2015 Mar 13;116(6):1058-73. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.303641. Circ Res. 2015. PMID: 25767290 Review.
Cited by
- Ocular Perfusion Pressure and the Risk of Open-Angle Glaucoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Kim KE, Oh S, Baek SU, Ahn SJ, Park KH, Jeoung JW. Kim KE, et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Jun 22;10(1):10056. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66914-w. Sci Rep. 2020. PMID: 32572072 Free PMC article. - TCE Meta-Analyses: Wartenberg et al.'s Response.
Wartenberg D, Reyner D. Wartenberg D, et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Dec;108(12):A543-A544. doi: 10.1289/ehp.108-a543. Environ Health Perspect. 2000. PMID: 11133407 Free PMC article. - Statistical genomics in rare cancer.
Abbas-Aghababazadeh F, Mo Q, Fridley BL. Abbas-Aghababazadeh F, et al. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020 Apr;61:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.08.021. Epub 2019 Aug 19. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020. PMID: 31437624 Free PMC article. Review. - Prognostic and Clinicopathological Significance of SERTAD1 in Various Types of Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Retrospective Analysis.
Mongre RK, Jung S, Mishra CB, Lee BS, Kumari S, Lee MS. Mongre RK, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2019 Mar 8;11(3):337. doi: 10.3390/cancers11030337. Cancers (Basel). 2019. PMID: 30857225 Free PMC article. Review. - Performance of Between-study Heterogeneity Measures in the Cochrane Library.
Ma X, Lin L, Qu Z, Zhu M, Chu H. Ma X, et al. Epidemiology. 2018 Nov;29(6):821-824. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000857. Epidemiology. 2018. PMID: 29847495 Free PMC article.