An accurate test for homogeneity of odds ratios based on Cochran's Q-statistic

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Kulinskaya, Elena ^a   Dollinger, Michael B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

2 2 tables; Fixed effect model; Heterogeneity test; Interaction test; Meta analysis; Random effects model

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; BIOMETRY; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); ODDS RATIO; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOFTWARE;

ALGORITHMS; BIOMETRY; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ODDS RATIO; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84938944525     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0034-x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Cochran WG. Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments. J R Stat Soc Suppl. 1937; 4:102-19.
2. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954; 10:101-29.
3. Welch BL. On the comparison of several mean values: an alternative approach. Biometrika. 1951; 38:330-6.
4. James GS. The comparison of several groups of observations when the ratios of the population variances are unknown. Biometrika. 1951; 38:324-9.
5. Woolf B. On estimating the relation between blood group and disease. Ann Human Genet. 1955; 19:251-3.
6. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986; 7:177-88.
7. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21:1531-58.
8. 2 index?Psychol Methods. 2006; 11(2):193-206.
9. Kulinskaya E, Dollinger MB, Bjørkestøl K. Testing for homogeneity in meta-analysis I, The one parameter case: Standardized mean difference. Biometrics. 2011; 67:203-12. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01442.x.
10. Kulinskaya E, Dollinger MB, Bjørkestøl K. On the moments of Cochran's Q statistic under the null hypothesis, with application to the meta-analysis of risk difference. Res Synth Methods. 2011; 2:254-70. doi:10.1002/jrsm.54
11. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Int Agency Res Cancer. 1980; 1:136-46.
12. Gart JJ, Pettigrew HM, Thomas DG. The effect of bias, variance estimation, skewness and kurtosis of the empirical logit on weighted least squares analysis. Biometrika. 1985; 72:179-90.
13. Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie RL. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1997; 16:753-68.
14. Schmidt AF, Groenwold RHH, Knol MJ, Hoes AW, Nielen M, Roes KCB, et al. Exploring interaction effects in small samples increases rates of false-positive and false-negative findings: results from a systematic review and simulations study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67:821-9.
15. Bhaumik DK, Amatya A, Normand S, Greenhouse J, Kaizar E, Neelon B, et al. Meta-analysis of rare binary adverse event data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012; 107:555-67.
16. Bagheri Z, Ayatollahi SMT, Jafari P. Comparison of three tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in multicenter trials with unequal sample sizes within and among centers. BMC Med Res Methodology. 2011; 11:58.
17. Lui K-J, Chang K-C. Test homogeneity of odds ratio in a randomized clinical trial with noncompliance. J Biopharmaceutical Stat. 2009; 19:916-32.
18. Gavaghan DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. An evaluation of homogeneity tests in meta-analysis in pain using simulations of individual patient data. Pain. 2000; 85:415-24.
19. Reis IM, Hirji KF, Afifi AA. Exact and asymptotic tests for homogeneity in several 2×2 tables. Stat Med. 1999; 18:893-906.
20. Paul SR, Donner A. Small sample performance of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2×2 tables. Stat Med. 1992; 11:159-65.
21. Paul SR, Donner A. A compararison of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2×2 tables. Stat Med. 1989; 8:1455-68.
22. Jones MP, O'Gorman TW, Lemke JH, Woolson RF. A Monte Carlo investigation of homogeneity tests of odds ratio under various sample size configurations. Biometrics. 1989; 45:171-81.
23. Tarone RE. On heterogeneity tests based on efficient scores. Biometrika. 1985; 72:91-5.
24. Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F. Testing the significance of a common risk difference in meta-analysis. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2000; 33:299-313.
25. Stead LF, Buitrago D, Preciado N, Sanchez G, Hartmann-Boyce J, Lancaster T. Physician advice for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 5. Art. No.: CD000165. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000165.pub4/full
26. Schwarzer G. meta, v.1.5-0. CRAN 2010. R package. Fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Functions for tests of bias, forest and funnel plot.
27. Viechtbauer W. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2007; 26:37-52.
28. Mandel J, Paule RC. Interlaboratory evaluation of a material with unequal numbers of replicates. Anal Chem. 1970; 42:1194-7.
29. DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update. Contemporary Clin Trials. 2007; 28:105-14.
30. Delignette-Muller ML, Dutang C. fitdistrplus, 1.0-4. CRAN 2015. R package. Help to Fit of a Parametric Distribution to Non-Censored or Censored Data.