Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: The quality effects model

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 45, Issue , 2015, Pages 123-129

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

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b Epigear International   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^e KUWAIT UNIVERSITY   (Kuwait)

Author keywords

Fixed effects; Heterogeneity; Meta analysis; Quality effects; Quasi likelihood; Random effects

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); MORTALITY; PROBABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROCEDURES;

MAGNESIUM;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MAGNESIUM; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84955367501     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: 15592030     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.010     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Doi S.A., Thalib L. A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2008, 19(1):94-100.
2. Doi S.A., Thalib L. An alternative quality adjustor for the quality effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2009, 20(2):314.
3. Doi S.A., Barendregt J.J., Khan S., Thalib L., Williams G.M. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogenous clinical trials I: the inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2015, 45:130-138. (in this issue).
4. Brockwell S.E., Gordon I.R. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2001, 20(6):825-840.
5. Noma H. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections. Stat. Med. 2011, 30(28):3304-3312.
6. Poole C., Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1999, 150(5):469-475.
7. DerSimonian R., Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 1986, 7(3):177-188.
8. Overton R.C. A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3(3):354-379.
9. Higgins J.P., Thompson S.G., Spiegelhalter D.J. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 2009, 172(1):137-159.
10. Doi S.A. Evidence synthesis for medical decision making and the appropriate use of quality scores. Clin. Med. Res. 2014, 12(1-2):40-46.
11. Greenland S., O'Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2001, 2(4):463-471.
12. Doi S.A., Barendregt J.J., Mozurkewich E.L. Meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials: an empirical example. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2011, 32:288-298.
13. Detsky A.S., Naylor C.D., O'Rourke K., McGeer A.J., L'Abbe K.A. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1992, 45(3):255-265.
14. Wedderburn R.W. Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized linear models and the Gauss-Newton method. Biometrika 1974, 61:439-447.
15. Kulinskaya E., Olkin I. An overdispersion model in meta-analysis. Stat. Model. 2014, 14(1):49-76.
16. Li J., Zhang Q., Zhang M., Egger M. Intravenous magnesium for acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2007, (2):CD002755.
17. Al Khalaf M.M., Thalib L., Doi S.A. Combining heterogenous studies using the random-effects model is a mistake and leads to inconclusive meta-analyses. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011, 64(2):119-123.
18. Doi S.A., Barendregt J.J., Khan S., Thalib L., Williams G.M. Simulation comparison of the quality effects and random effects methods of meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2015, 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000289.
19. Burton A., Altman D.G., Royston P., Holder R.L. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat. Med. 2006, 25(24):4279-4292.
20. Ha V., Sievenpiper J.L., de Souza R.J., et al. Effect of dietary pulse intake on established therapeutic lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ 2014, 186(8):E252-E262.
21. Thompson S., Ekelund U., Jebb S., et al. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 40(3):765-777.