An evaluation of homogeneity tests in meta-analyses in pain using simulations of individual patient data

Pain

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 415-424

  Gavaghan, David J ^a   Moore, R Andrew ^b   McQuay, Henry J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Heterogeneity; Homogeneity; Meta analysis; Pain relief

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; META ANALYSIS; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PAIN MEASUREMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 0034175511     PISSN: 03043959     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00302-4     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Breslow N.E., Day N.E. The analysis of case-control studies (chapter 4), Statistical methods in cancer research, 1. 1980;International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyons.
2. Cox D.R. Analysis of binary data. 1972;Methuen, London.
3. Dersimonian R., Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 7:1986;177-188.
4. Dudewicz E.J., Mishra S.N. Modern mathematical statistics. 1988;Wiley, New York.
5. Edwards J.E., Oldham A., Smith L., Carroll D., Wiffen P.J., Mcquay H.J., Moore R.A. Oral aspirin in post-operative pain. A quantitative systematic review. Pain. 81:1999;289-297.
6. Fleiss J.L. Statistical methods for rates and proportions (chapter 10). 2nd ed :1981;Wiley, New York.
7. Greenland S., Salvan A. Bias in the one-step method for pooling study results. Stats Med. 9:1990;247-252.
8. Halperin M., Ware J.H., Byar D.P., Mantel N., Brown C.C., Kozial J., Gail M., Green S.B. Testing for interaction in an I×J×K table. Biometrika. 64:1977;271-275.
9. Hardy R.J., Thompson S.G. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stats Med. 17:1998;844-856.
10. Jones M.P., O'Gorman T.W., Lemke J.H., Woolson R.F. Monte-Carlo investigation of homogeneity tests of the odds ratio under various sample size configurations. Biometrics. 45:1989;171-181.
11. Liang K.Y., Self S.G. Tests for homogeneity of odds ratio when the data are sparse. Biometrika. 72:1985;353-358.
12. Mantel N., Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 22:1959;719-748.
13. McQuay H.J., Moore R.A. Using numerical results for systematic reviews in clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 126:1997;712-720.
14. McQuay H.J., Moore R.A. An evidence-based resource for pain relief. 1998;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
15. Paul S.R., Donner A. comparison of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2×2 table. Stats Med. 8:1989;1455-1468.
16. Paul S.R., Donner A. Small sample performance of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2×2 table. Stats Med. 11:1992;159-165.
17. Thompson S.G., Pocock S.J. Can meta-analysis be trusted? Lancet. 338:1986;1127-1130.
18. Woolf B. On estimating the relation between blood group and disease. Ann Hum Genet. 19:1955;251-253.
19. Yusuf S., Peto R., Lewis J., Collins R., Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomised trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 5:1985;335-371.
20. Zelen M. The analysis of several 2×2 tables. Biometrika. 58:1971;129-137.