A note on the graphical presentation of prediction intervals in random-effects meta-analyses

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2002, Pages

  Guddat, Charlotte ^a   Grouven, Ulrich ^a,b   Bender, Ralf ^a,c   Skipka, Guido ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^b HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Forest plot; Heterogeneity; Meta analysis; Prediction interval; Random effects model

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84876401958     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-34     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002, 21:1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186, 12111919.
2. Bourhis J, Overgaard J, Audry H, Ang KK, Saunders M, Bernier J, Horiot JC, Le Maitre A, Pajak TF, Poulsen MG, et al. Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2006, 368:843-854. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69121-6, 16950362.
3. Hutton EK, Hassan ES. Late vs early clamping of the umbilical cord in full-term neonates: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. JAMA 2007, 297:1241-1252. 10.1001/jama.297.11.1241, 17374818.
4. Nabi G, Cook J, N'Dow J, McClinton S. Outcomes of stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2007, 334:572. 10.1136/bmj.39119.595081.55, 1828345, 17311851.
5. The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan): 5 for Windows edition 2008, The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, The Cochrane Collaboration.
6. Skipka G. The inclusion of the estimated inter-study variation into forest plots for random effects meta-analysis - a suggestion for a graphical representation [abstract] 2006, 23-26. XIV Cochrane Colloquium, Dublin, Program and Abstract Book; 2006:134.
7. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc A 2009, 172:137-159.
8. Riley RD, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011, 342:d549. 10.1136/bmj.d549, 21310794.
9. Borenstein M. Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR: Introduction to meta-analysis 2009, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
10. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med 2001, 20:825-840. 10.1002/sim.650, 11252006.
11. Knapp G, Biggerstaff BJ, Hartung J. Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis. Biom J 2006, 48:271-285. 10.1002/bimj.200510175, 16708778.
12. Mittlböck M, Heinzl H. A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Stat Med 2006, 25:4321-4333. 10.1002/sim.2692, 16991104.
13. Biggerstaff BJ, Jackson D. The exact distribution of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic in one-way random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med 2008, 27:6093-6110. 10.1002/sim.3428, 18781561.
14. Lee KJ, Thompson SG. Flexible parametric models for random-effects distributions. Stat Med 2008, 27:418-434. 10.1002/sim.2897, 17477434.
15. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327:557-560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557, 192859, 12958120.
16. Graham PL, Moran JL. Robust meta-analytic conclusions mandate the provision of prediction intervals in meta-analysis summaries. J Clin Epidemiol 2012, 65:503-510. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.012, 22265586.
17. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings 2004, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2.
18. DerSimonian R, Laird NM. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986, 7:177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2, 3802833.