Subgroup effects despite homogeneous heterogeneity test results

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 10, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Groenwold, Rolf Hh ^a   Rovers, Maroeska M ^a   Lubsen, Jacobus ^b   Heijden, Geert Jmg Van Der ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMOXICILLIN; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT;

ACUTE DISEASE; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; CHILD; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; OTITIS MEDIA; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ACUTE DISEASE; AMOXICILLIN; ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; BIOMETRY; CHILD; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OTITIS MEDIA; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 77954560069     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-43     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. JP Ioannidis, J Eval Clin Pract 2008 14 951 7 19018930
2. Identifying and quantifying heterogeneity. M Borenstein LV Hedges JPT Higgins HR Rothstein, Introduction to Meta-analysis Chichester, UK: John Wiley&Sons 1 2009 107 26 full-text
3. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. JPT Higgins SG Thompson, Stat Med 2002 21 1539 58 10.1002/sim.1186 12111919
4. Baseline risk as a predictor of treatment benefit: three clinical meta-re-analyses. LR Arends AW Hoes J Lubsen DE Grobbee T Stijnen, Stat Med 2000 19 3497 3518 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3497::AID-SIM8303.0.CO;2-H 11122510
5. 2 tests. WG Cochran, Biometrics 1954 10 417 51 10.2307/3001616
6. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. R DerSimonian N Laird, Control Clin Trials 1986 7 177 88 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 3802833
7. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. JPT Higgins SG Thompson JJ Deeks DG Altman, BMJ 2003 327 557 60 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 12958120
8. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. EA Engels CH Schmid N Terrin I Olkin J Lau, Stat Med 2000 19 1707 28 10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::AID-SIM4913.0. CO;2-P 10861773
9. Commentary: heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. JP Higgins, Int J Epidemiol 2008 37 1158 60 10.1093/ije/dyn204 18832388
10. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. JA Sterne P Juni KF Schulz DG Altman C Bartlett M Egger, Stat Med 2002 21 1513 24 10.1002/sim.1184 12111917
11. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. SG Thompson SJ Sharp, Stat Med 1999 18 2693 708 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030) 18:20<2693::AID-SIM2353.0.CO;2-V 10521860
12. Confounding of subgroup analyses in randomized trials. RH Groenwold AR Donders GJ van der Heijden AW Hoes MM Rovers, Arch Intern Med 2009 169 1532 4 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.250 19752412
13. Antibiotics for acute otitis media: a meta-analysis with individual patient data. MM Rovers P Glasziou CL Appelman P Burke DP McCormick RA Damoiseaux I Gaboury P Little AW Hoes, Lancet 2006 368 1429 35 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69606-2 17055944