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

Elsevier Science full text link Elsevier Science Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Share

.2015 Nov;45(Pt A):139-45.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002. Epub 2015 Sep 4.

Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited

Affiliations

Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited

Rebecca DerSimonian et al. Contemp Clin Trials.2015 Nov.

Abstract

In this paper, we revisit a 1986 article we published in this Journal, Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials, where we introduced a random-effects model to summarize the evidence about treatment efficacy from a number of related clinical trials. Because of its simplicity and ease of implementation, our approach has been widely used (with more than 12,000 citations to date) and the "DerSimonian and Laird method" is now often referred to as the 'standard approach' or a 'popular' method for meta-analysis in medical and clinical research. The method is especially useful for providing an overall effect estimate and for characterizing the heterogeneity of effects across a series of studies. Here, we review the background that led to the original 1986 article, briefly describe the random-effects approach for meta-analysis, explore its use in various settings and trends over time and recommend a refinement to the method using a robust variance estimator for testing overall effect. We conclude with a discussion of repurposing the method for Big Data meta-analysis and Genome Wide Association Studies for studying the importance of genetic variants in complex diseases.

Keywords: Big Data; Clinical trials; Genome Wide Association Studies; Heterogeneity; Meta-analysis; Random-effects model.

Published by Elsevier Inc.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Random Effects Notation and Model
Figure 2
Figure 2
Method of Analysis
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 6
Hypothesis Testing with the Random Effects Model
Figure 7
Figure 7
INSIG2 Variant and Obesity
Figure 8
Figure 8
INSIG2 Rs7566605 Association with Obesity Meta-Analysis Results for Adults
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. DerSimonian R, Laird NM. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1986;7:177–188. - PubMed
    1. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher. 1976;5:3–8.
    1. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1978;1:377–386.
    1. Mosteller F. The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. The Future of Children. 1995;5(2):113–127. - PubMed
    1. Mosteller F, Light RJ, Sachs JA. Sustaining Inquiry in Education: Lessons from Skill Grouping and Class Size. Harvard Educational Review. 1996;66(4):797–842.

MeSH terms

Related information

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Elsevier Science full text link Elsevier 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