Performance of statistical methods for meta-analysis when true study effects are non-normally distributed: A simulation study

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 409-426

  Kontopantelis, Evangelos ^a   Reeves, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biggestaff Tweedie; coverage; DerSimonian Laird; meta analysis; non normal; permutations; power; profile likelihood; Sidik Jonkman; simulation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROBABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SAMPLING ERROR; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; VARIANCE;

LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 84863975528     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280210392008     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ. 1997 ; 315 (7119). 1371-1374 (Pubitemid 27499747)
2. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976 ; 5 (10). 3-8
3. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]. Higgins JPT Green S, ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd ; 2005:
4. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 1994 ; 309 (6965). 1351-1355 (Pubitemid 24345976)
5. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1998 ; 17 (8). 841-856 (Pubitemid 28185164)
6. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002 ; 21 (11). 1539-1558 (Pubitemid 34746062)
7. Takkouche B, Cadarso-Suarez C, Spiegelman D. Evaluation of old and new tests of heterogeneity in epidemiologic meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 ; 150 (2). 206-215 (Pubitemid 29340156)
8. Glasziou PP, Sanders SL. Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews. Stat Med. 2002 ; 21 (11). 1503-1511 (Pubitemid 34746059)
9. Song F, Sheldon TA, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Methods for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof. 2001 ; 24 (2). 126-151 (Pubitemid 33089375)
10. Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001 ; 20 (23). 3625-3633 (Pubitemid 33114432)
11. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001 ; 20 (6). 825-840 (Pubitemid 32249083)
12. Thompson SG, Pocock SJ. Can meta-analyses be trusted?. Lancet. 1991 ; 338 (8775). 1127-1130
13. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986 ; 7 (3). 177-188 (Pubitemid 17189972)
14. Bohning D, Malzahn U, Dietz E, Schlattmann P, Viwatwongkasem C, Biggeri A. Some general points in estimating heterogeneity variance with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. Biostatistics. 2002 ; 3 (4). 445-457
15. Thompson SG. Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993 ; 2 (2). 173-192
16. Micceri T. The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychol Bull. 1989 ; 105 (1). 156-166
17. Follmann DA, Proschan MA. Valid inference in random effects meta-analysis. Biometrics. 1999 ; 55 (3). 732-737 (Pubitemid 29427071)
18. Laird N. Nonparametric maximum likelihood estimation of a mixing distribution. J Am Stat Assoc. 1978 ; 73: 805-811
19. Aitkin M. Meta-analysis by random effect modelling in generalized linear models. Stat Med. 1999 ; 18 (17-18). 2343-2351 (Pubitemid 29423500)
20. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002 ; 21 (21). 3153-3159 (Pubitemid 35244005)
21. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Stat Med. 2007 ; 26 (9). 1964-1981 (Pubitemid 46534087)
22. Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie RL. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1997 ; 16 (7). 753-768 (Pubitemid 27165681)
23. Poole C, Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 ; 150 (5). 469-475 (Pubitemid 29407230)
24. Cochran WG. Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments. J R Stat Soc. 1937 ; Suppl 4 (1). 102-118
25. Mittlbock M, Heinzl H. A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2006 ; 25 (24). 4321-4333 (Pubitemid 46023775)
26. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects. Stat Med. 1996 ; 15 (6). 619-629 (Pubitemid 26109009)
27. StataCorp LP. Stata Statistical software. [9.2]. 2005. College Station, Texas, USA, StataCorp LP. Ref type: Computer Program.
28. The MathWorks Inc. MATLAB. [7.6.0.324]. 2008. Natick, Massachusetts, USA, The MathWorks Inc. Ref type: Computer Program.
29. Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2000 ; 19 (13). 1707-1728 (Pubitemid 30436058)
30. Ramberg JS, Dudewicz EJ, Tadikamalla PR, Mykytka EF. A probability distribution and its uses in fitting data. Technometrics. 1979 ; 21 (2). 201-214
31. Tadikamalla PR. On simulating non-normal distributions. Psychometrika. 1980 ; 45 (2). 273-279
32. Reinartz WJ, Echambadi R, Chin WW. Generating non-normal data for simulation of structural equation models using Mattson's method. Multivariate Behav Res. 2002 ; 37 (2). 227-244 (Pubitemid 36630365)
33. Hedges LV. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 2001 ; 6 (3). 203-217 (Pubitemid 33600378)
34. Overton RC. A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychol Methods. 1998 ; 3 (3). 354-379
35. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager for Windows. [4.2.10]. 2007. Ref type: Computer Program
36. Kontopantelis E, Reeves D. MetaEasy: a meta-analysis add-in for Microsoft Excel. J Stat Softw. 2009 ; 30 (7). 1-25
37. Kontopantelis E, Reeves D. metaan: random effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2010 ; 10 (3). 395-407