No solution yet for combining two independent studies in the presence of heterogeneity

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 34, Issue 16, 2015, Pages 2476-2480

  Gonnermann, Andrea ^a   Framke, Theodor ^a   Großhennig, Anika ^a   Koch, Armin ^a  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DERSIMONIAN AND LAIRD APPROACH; ERROR; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FIXED EFFECTS APPROACH; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; HARTUNG AND KNAPP APPROACH; HUMAN; LICENSING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; BIOSTATISTICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG APPROVAL; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC);

BIOSTATISTICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG APPROVAL; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 84930399719     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6473     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Jackson D, Baker R. Meta-analysis inside and outside particle physics: convergence using the path of least resistance? Research Synthesis Methods 2013; 4:125-126.
2. Hartung J, Knapp G. A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20(3): 875-3889.
3. Hartung J, Knapp G. On tests of the overall treatment effect in meta-analysis with normally distributed responses. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:1771-1782.
4. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986; 7:177-188, available at 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
5. Villar J, Mackey M. Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects models. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:3635-3647.
6. Thompson SG, Pocock S. Can meta-analyses be trusted?Lancet 1991; 338:1127-1130.
7. Ziegler S. Victor. Gefahren der Standardmethoden für Meta-Analysen bei Vorliegen von Heterogenität. Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie 1999; 30:131-140.
8. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 5.1.0 ed. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. [http://www.cochrane-handbook.org].
9. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:825-840.
10. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK, 2009.
11. Roloff V, Higgins JPT, Sutton AJ. Planning future studies based on the conditional power of a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 32(1):11-24.
12. Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods 2001; 6(3):203-217.
13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (1998). Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological Products. Guidance For Industry, 1998. [Online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm078749.pdf] [Accessed on 18 December 2014].
14. International Conference on Harmonisation of Techniqual Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E9. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline, 1998. [Online: http:// www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002928.pdf] [Accessed on 18 December 2014].
15. International Conference on Harmonisation of Techniqual Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use . The Common Technical Document For The Registration Of Pharmaceuticals For Human Use EFFICACY - M4E(R1). ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline, 2002. [Online: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public\_Web\_Site/ ICH\_Products/CTD/M4\_\_R1\_\_Efficacy/M4E\_\_R1\_.pdf] [Accessed on 18 December 2014].
16. Janatzek S. Untersuchung von und Umgang mit Heterogenität in Nutzenbewertungen - ein Problemaufriss. IQWiG, 2001. [Online: https://www.iqwig.de/download/IQWiG\_im\_Dialog\_2011\_Sandra\_Janatzek.pdf] [Accessed on 18 December 2014].
17. Victor N. 'The challenge of meta-analysis': discussion. Indications and contra-indications for meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1995; 48(1):5-8.
18. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011. [Online: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653] [Accessed on 18 December 2014].
19. Amato L, Davoli M, Minozzi S, Ferroni E, Ali R, Ferri M. Methadone at tapered doses for the management of opioid withdrawal (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005; 3:Art. No.: CD003409. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
20. Poustie VJ, Wildgoose J. Dietary interventions for phenylketonuria (Review). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010; 1:Art. No.: CD001304. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
21. Zeng Y, Duan X, Xu J, Ni X. TPO receptor agonist for chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011; 7:Art. No.: CD008235. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
22. R Development Core Team . R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Reference Index Version 3.1.0, R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2014. [http://www.R-project.org].
23. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 2003; 327:557-560.
24. Koch A, Röhmel J. Why are some meta-analyses more credible than others?Drug Information Journal 2001; 35:1019-1030.