Comments on 'Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis'

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1270-1271

  Thompson, Simon G ^a   Higgins, Julian P T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; BAYESIAN LEARNING; DERSIMONIAN LAIRD APPROACH; EFFECT SIZE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; POLICY; PUBLICATION; RANDOM SAMPLE; SAMPLE SIZE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOSTATISTICS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 77952827715     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3718     Document Type: Note

References (17)

1. Shuster JJ. Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2009; DOI: 10.1002/sim.3601.
2. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A 2009; 172:137-159.
3. Senn S. The many modes of meta. Drug Information Journal 2000; 34:535-549.
4. Sidik K, Jonkman J. Robust variance estimation for random effects meta-analysis. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2006; 50:3681-3701.
5. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:841-856.
6. Turner RM, Omar RZ, Yang M, Goldstein H, Thompson SG. A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:3417-3432. (Pubitemid 32056694)
7. Hartung J, Knapp G. On tests of the overall treatment effect in meta-analysis with normally distributed responses. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:1771-1782.
8. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal 1997; 315:629-634. (Pubitemid 27387172)
9. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 2006; 295:676-680.
10. Hughes MD, Freedman LS, Pocock SJ. The impact of stopping rules on heterogeneity of results in overviews of clinical trials. Biometrics 1992; 48:41-53.
11. Copas J. What works? Selectivity models and meta-analysis. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A 1999; 162:95-109.
12. Williamson PR, Gamble C. Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:1547-1561.
13. Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M (eds). Publication Bias in Meta-analysis. Wiley: New York, 2005.
14. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention, Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Wiley: New York, 2008; 297-333.
15. Cox DR. Combination of data. In Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (2nd edn), Kotz S, Read CB, Balakrishnan N, Vidakovic B (eds). Wiley: New York, 2006; 1074-1081.
16. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. British Medical Journal 1994; 309:1351-1355.
17. Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GC, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A 2009; 172:21-47.