Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Public Library of Science full text link Public Library of Science Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Share

.2013 Jul 26;8(7):e69930.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069930. Print 2013.

A re-analysis of the Cochrane Library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta-analyses

Affiliations

A re-analysis of the Cochrane Library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta-analyses

Evangelos Kontopantelis et al. PLoS One..

Abstract

Background: Heterogeneity has a key role in meta-analysis methods and can greatly affect conclusions. However, true levels of heterogeneity are unknown and often researchers assume homogeneity. We aim to: a) investigate the prevalence of unobserved heterogeneity and the validity of the assumption of homogeneity; b) assess the performance of various meta-analysis methods; c) apply the findings to published meta-analyses.

Methods and findings: We accessed 57,397 meta-analyses, available in the Cochrane Library in August 2012. Using simulated data we assessed the performance of various meta-analysis methods in different scenarios. The prevalence of a zero heterogeneity estimate in the simulated scenarios was compared with that in the Cochrane data, to estimate the degree of unobserved heterogeneity in the latter. We re-analysed all meta-analyses using all methods and assessed the sensitivity of the statistical conclusions. Levels of unobserved heterogeneity in the Cochrane data appeared to be high, especially for small meta-analyses. A bootstrapped version of the DerSimonian-Laird approach performed best in both detecting heterogeneity and in returning more accurate overall effect estimates. Re-analysing all meta-analyses with this new method we found that in cases where heterogeneity had originally been detected but ignored, 17-20% of the statistical conclusions changed. Rates were much lower where the original analysis did not detect heterogeneity or took it into account, between 1% and 3%.

Conclusions: When evidence for heterogeneity is lacking, standard practice is to assume homogeneity and apply a simpler fixed-effect meta-analysis. We find that assuming homogeneity often results in a misleading analysis, since heterogeneity is very likely present but undetected. Our new method represents a small improvement but the problem largely remains, especially for very small meta-analyses. One solution is to test the sensitivity of the meta-analysis conclusions to assumed moderate and large degrees of heterogeneity. Equally, whenever heterogeneity is detected, it should not be ignored.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. All meta-analyses, including single-study and subgroup meta-analyses.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model selection by number of available studies (and % of random-effects meta-analyses)*.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of zero between-study variance estimates rates in the Cochrane library data and in simulations, using the DerSimonian-Laird method*.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of between-study variance estimates by method type (including main and subgroup meta-analyses and truncated to 0.5 for better visualisation).
Figure 5
Figure 5. Cumulative distribution of between-study variance estimates by method type (including main and subgroup meta-analyses and truncated to 5 for better visualisation).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, NetLibrary I (2001) Systematic reviews in health care : meta-analysis in context: London : BMJ Books.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control ClinTrials 7: 177–188. - PubMed
    1. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR (2001) A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. StatMed 20: 825–840. - PubMed
    1. Kontopantelis E, Reeves D (2012) Performance of statistical methods for meta-analysis when true study effects are non-normally distributed: A simulation study. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 21: 409–426. - PubMed
    1. Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie RL (1997) Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 16: 753–768. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Related information

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Public Library of Science full text link Public Library of Science Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp