Comments on 'Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis' by JJ Shuster, Statistics in Medicine 2009; 26, Published online, DOI: 10.1002/sim.3607

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 28, 2010, Pages 2963-2965

  Rücker, Gerta ^a   Schwarzer, Guido ^a   Carpenter, James ^a,b   Schumacher, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MAGNESIUM;

CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; LETTER; MANTEL HAENSZEL TEST; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME VARIABLE; RANDOM ERROR; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIOSTATISTICS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 78649585881     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3957     Document Type: Letter

References (12)

1. Shuster JJ. Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2009; DOI: 10.1002/sim.3607.
2. Shuster J, Jones L, Salmon D. Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:4375-4385.
3. Carpenter JR, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. Comments on 'Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death'. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(19):3910-3912. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3173.
4. Waksman J, Kollar C. Comments on 'Rebuttal to Carpenter et al.' Comments on 'Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death' by J. J. Shuster, L. S. Jones and D. A. Salmon, Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:3912-3914. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28(3):534-536.
5. Sterne JAC, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2000; 53:1119-1129.
6. Copas JB, Shi JQ. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2001; 10:251-265.
7. Carpenter JR, Schwarzer G, Rücker G, Künstler R. Empirical evaluation showed that the Copas selection model provided a useful summary in 80 per cent of meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62:624-631.
8. Moreno S, Sutton A, Ades A, Stanley T, Abrams K, Peters J, Cooper N. Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009; 9:2. Available from:
9. Moreno SG, Sutton AJ, Turner EH, Abrams KR, Cooper NJ, Palmer TP, Ades AE. Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications. British Medical Journal 2009; 339. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2981.
10. Sterne JAC, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guideline on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54:1046-1055.
11. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.2. 2009. Available from:
12. 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008; 8:79. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-79. Available from: