Simulation Comparison of the Quality Effects and Random Effects Methods of Meta-analysis

Epidemiology

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2015, Pages e42-e44

  Doi, Suhail A R ^a   Barendregt, Jan J ^b   Khan, Shahjahan ^c   Thalib, Lukman ^d   Williams, Gail M ^b  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^d KUWAIT UNIVERSITY   (Kuwait)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARITHMETIC; EFFECT SIZE; LETTER; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HUMAN; STATISTICS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84939180836     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000289     Document Type: Letter

References (8)

1. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001;20:825-840.
2. Noma H. Confidence intervals for a randomeffects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections. Stat Med. 2011;30:3304-3312.
3. Poole C, Greenland S. Random-effects metaanalyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:469-475.
4. Overton RC. A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for metaanalysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods 1998;3:354-379.
5. Doi SA, Thalib L. A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2008;19: 94-100.
6. Doi SA, Thalib L. An alternative quality adjustor for the quality effects model for metaanalysis. Epidemiology. 2009;20:314.
7. Burton A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med. 2006;25:4279-4292.
8. Shuster JJ. Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29: 1259-1265.