Methods for calculating confidence and credible intervals for the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Jackson, Dan ^a   Turner, Rebecca ^a   Rhodes, Kirsty ^a   Viechtbauer, Wolfgang ^b  

^a MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Heterogeneity; Informative priors; Meta regression; Quadratic forms

Indexed keywords

PARACETAMOL;

ANALGESIA; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BAYES THEOREM; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HUMAN; MOLAR TOOTH; PAIN; PROCEDURES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TOOTH EXTRACTION;

ACETAMINOPHEN; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BAYES THEOREM; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOLAR, THIRD; PAIN; PAIN MANAGEMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TOOTH EXTRACTION;

EID: 84907015020     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-103     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Knapp G, Hartung J, Stat Med 2003 22 2693 2710 10.1002/sim.1482 12939780
2. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Sharp S, Thompson SG, Stat Med 1999 18 2693 2708 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::AID-SIM235>3.0.CO;2-V 10521860
3. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T, Stat Med 2002 21 589 624 10.1002/sim.1040 11836738
4. Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression. Baker WL, White CM, Cappelleri JC, Kluger J, Coleman CI, Int J Clin Pract 2009 63 1426 1434 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02168.x 19769699
5. The significance level of meta-regression's standard hypothesis test. Jackson D, Commun Stat Theory Methods 2008 37 1576 1590 10.1080/03610920801893863
6. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Thompson SG, Higgins JTP, Stat Med 2002 21 1559 1573 10.1002/sim.1187 12111920
7. The exact distribution of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic in one-way random effects meta-analysis. Biggerstaff BJ, Jackson D, Stat Med 2008 27 6093 6110 10.1002/sim.3428 18781561
8. Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random effects meta-analysis using generalised Cochran heterogeneity statistics. Jackson D, Res Synth Methods 2013 4 220 229
9. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Viechtbauer W, Stat Med 2007 26 37 52 10.1002/sim.2514 16463355
10. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JPT, Int J Epidemiol 2012 41 818 827 10.1093/ije/dys041 22461129
11. Analysis of moderator effects in meta-analysis. Viechtbauer W, Best Practices in Quantitative Methods Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications, Osborne JW, Osborne JW, 2008
12. On estimating residual heterogeneity in random effects meta-regression: a comparative study. Panityakul T, Bumrungsup C, Knapp G, J Stat Theory Appl 2013 12 253 265 10.2991/jsta.2013.12.3.4
13. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update. DerSimonian R, Kacker R, Contemp Clin Trials 2007 28 105 114 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004 16807131
14. Zhang F, Matrix Theory (2nd edition) New York: Springer 2010
15. Cassella G, Berger Rl, Statistical Inference Pacific Grove, USA: Duxbury Press 2002
16. 2random variables. Farebrother RW, Appl Stat 1984 33 332 339 10.2307/2347721
17. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. DerSimonian R, Laird N, Control Clin Trials 1986 7 177 188 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 3802833
18. Searle SR, Linear models New York, USA: Wiley 1971
19. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie R, Stat Med 1997 16 753 768 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::AID-SIM494>3.0.CO;2-G 9131763
20. On confidence intervals for the among-group variance in the one-way random effects model with unequal error variances. Hartung J, Knapp G, J Stat Plann Inference 2005 127 157 177 10.1016/j.jspi.2003.09.032
21. Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis. Knapp G, Biggerstaff BJ, Hartung J, Biom J 2006 48 271 285 10.1002/bimj.200510175 16708778
22. Consensus values and weighting factors. Paule RC, Mandel J, J Res National Bureau Stand 1982 87 377 385 10.6028/jres.087.022
23. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Colditz GA, Stat Med 1995 14 395 411 10.1002/sim.4780140406 7746979
24. A comparison of procedures to test moderators in mixed-effects meta-regression models. Viechtbauer W, López-López J, Sáchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Psychol Methods (under review). http:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25110905
25. How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Burton PR, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Stat Med 2005 24 2401 2428 10.1002/sim.2112 16015676
26. An informed reference prior for between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses of binary outcomes. Pullenayegum EM, Stat Med 2011 30 3082 3094 10.1002/sim.4326 22020726
27. Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis. Turner RM, Jackson D, Wei Y, Thompson SG, Higgins JPT, Undergoing peer review
28. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis, using continuous outcome data from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Higgins JPT, J Clin Epidemiol (Epub ahead of print)
29. WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D, Stat Comput 2000 10 325 337 10.1023/A:1008929526011
30. Paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth. Weil K, Hooper L, Afzal Z, Esposito M, Worthington HV, van Wijk A, Coulthard P, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 (3): Art. No. CD004487. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004487.pub2
31. Alternative methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Brooks SP, Gelman A, J Comput Graphical Stat 1998 7 434 455
32. Interventions for promoting physical activity. Foster C, Kaur A, Wedatilake T, HillsdonM, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005 (1): Art. No. CD003180. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003180.pub2
33. Inference for meta-analysis with a suspected temporal trend. Baker R, Jackson D, Biom J 2010 52 538 551 10.1002/bimj.200900307 20740482
34. Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: a two-stage approach. Lu G, Welton NJ, Higgins JPT, White IR, Ades AE, Res Synth Methods 2011 2 43 60 10.1002/jrsm.34
35. Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Lu G, Ades AE, Biostatistics 2009 10 792 805 10.1093/biostatistics/kxp032 19687150
36. Modelling heterogeneity variances in multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis-Are informative priors the better solution? Thorlund K, Thadane L, Mills EJ, BMC Res Methodol 2013 13 2 10.1186/1471-2288-13-2
37. A design-by-treatment interaction model for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. Jackson D, Barrett JK, Rice S, White IR, Higgins JPT, Stat Med 2014 33 3639 3654 10.1002/sim.6188 24777711
38. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JPT, Res Synth Methods 2012 3 111 125 10.1002/jrsm.1045
39. Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localized prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis. Xiong T, Turner R, Wei Y, Neal D, Lyratzopoulos G, Higgins J, BMJ Open 2014 4 004285 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285 24833678