Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: Comparison of fixed and random effects models

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 20, Issue 23, 2001, Pages 3635-3647

  Villar, José ^a   Mackey, Maria Eugenia ^b   Carroli, Guillermo ^b   Donner, Allan ^c  

^a WORLD BANK   (United States)

^b Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales   (Argentina)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CHILDBIRTH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; META ANALYSIS; NEWBORN; PERINATAL CARE; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; META-ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEONATOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PUBLICATION BIAS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS;

EID: 0035892663     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1096     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Statistical methods in meta-analysis
2. Invited Commentary: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods
3. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: An empirical study of 125 meta-analyses
4. Predictive ability of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
5. Factors affecting the comparability of meta-analyses and largest trials results in perinatology
6. Can meta-analyses be trusted?
7. A systematic review comparing continuity of midwifery care with standard maternity services
8. Meta-analysis
9. Invited Commentary: Re: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods
10. Invited commentary on meta-analysis of epidemiological data: The case of calcium and blood pressure
11. Meta-analyses in clinical trials
12. Summing up evidence: One answer is not always enough
13. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials
14. Random-effect meta-analyses are not always conservative
15. The potential and limitations of meta-analysis
16. Bias in the one-step method for pooling study results
17. Combination of results from a series of 2 × 2 tables; control of confounding
18. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis
19. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
20. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
21. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
22. Uncertainty of the time of first significance in random effects cumulative meta-analysis
23. Combining information: Statistical issues and opportunities for research
24. Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems (Cochrane Review)
25. Same nutrient, different hypotheses: Disparities in trials of calcium supplementation during pregnancy
26. Meta-analysis in the design and monitoring of clinical trials
27. Publication bias: A problem in interpreting medical data
28. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical test and prevalence in the literature
29. Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects
30. Combining studies using effect sizes and quality scores: Application to bone loss in postmenopausal women
31. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effect model in meta-analysis
32. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects
33. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analyses: A comparison of methods
34. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analyses, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions
35. Fixed and random-effects models in meta-analyses
36. Inter-Study differences: How should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results
37. Effects measures for meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes
38. Trials to assess equivalence: The importance of rigorous methods
39. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement
40. Patterns of routine antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy (Cochrane Review)