Abstract
A relevant problem in meta-analysis concerns the possible heterogeneity between trial results. If a test of heterogeneity is not significant the trials are often considered to be "homogeneous" and the individual trial results are replaced by an overall mean effect size and its confidence interval ("equal effects model"). If the trials are heterogeneous the individual trial effect sizes are conserved ("fixed effects model"). In a more flexible approach ("random effects model"), each trial makes use of knowledge from the other trials so individual effect sizes are "shrunken" towards an overall mean effect size. The more flexible tool may be useful for doctors involved in a trial when the outcome of their individual trial differs markedly from the overall mean effect size. Where a particular trial result is opposite in direction to the overall mean result, a conflict may arise: should a new patient be treated with the new method or not? The more flexible position and a graphical comparison of the three approaches are likely to be helpful in guiding the decision. Applying different models to the same data may lead to apparently paradoxical results: an individual trial result may be interpreted to be beneficial or harmful depending on the choice of model.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (90.2 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Carlin J. B. Meta-analysis for 2 x 2 tables: a Bayesian approach. Stat Med. 1992 Jan 30;11(2):141–158. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780110202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cucherat M., Boissel J. P., Leizorovicz A., Haugh M. C. EasyMA: a program for the meta-analysis of clinical trials. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1997 Jul;53(3):187–190. doi: 10.1016/s0169-2607(97)00016-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davey Smith G., Egger M. Meta-analysis. Unresolved issues and future developments. BMJ. 1998 Jan 17;316(7126):221–225. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7126.221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davey Smith G., Egger M., Phillips A. N. Meta-analysis. Beyond the grand mean? BMJ. 1997 Dec 13;315(7122):1610–1614. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7122.1610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Egger M., Schneider M., Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 1998 Jan 10;316(7125):140–144. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7125.140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Egger M., Smith G. D. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998 Jan 3;316(7124):61–66. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Egger M., Smith G. D. Meta-Analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ. 1997 Nov 22;315(7119):1371–1374. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Egger M., Smith G. D., Phillips A. N. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997 Dec 6;315(7121):1533–1537. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Laird N. M., Mosteller F. Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(1):5–30. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300008916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Louis T. A. Using empirical Bayes methods in biopharmaceutical research. Stat Med. 1991 Jun;10(6):811–829. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780100604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yusuf S., Peto R., Lewis J., Collins R., Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985 Mar-Apr;27(5):335–371. doi: 10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]