Misunderstandings about Q and 'Cochran's Q test' in meta-analysis

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 485-495

  Hoaglin, David C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

DerSimonian Laird procedure; Heterogeneity; I2; Random effects meta analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COCHRAN Q TEST; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DERSIMONIAN-LAIRD PROCEDURE; EFFECT SIZE; MATHEMATICAL AND STATISTICAL PROCEDURES; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; NULL DISTRIBUTION; RANDOM-EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZATION; REFERENCE VALUE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EFFECT MODIFIER, EPIDEMIOLOGIC; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NUMERICAL ANALYSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED;

EID: 84959266078     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6632     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954; 10:101-129.
2. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein H. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 2010; 1:97-111.
3. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. New England Journal of Medicine 2007; 356:2457-2471.
4. Shuster JJ, Jones LS, Salmon DA. Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:4375-4385.
5. Welch BL. On the comparison of several mean values-an alternative approach. Biometrika 1951; 38:330-336.
6. Stigler SM. Stigler's law of eponymy. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series 2 1980; 39:147-158.
7. Cochran WG. Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Supplement 1937; 4:102-118.
8. Meier P . Variance of a weighted mean. Biometrics 1953; 9:59-73.
9. Yates F, Cochran WG. The analysis of groups of experiments. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1938; 28:556-580.
10. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Second Edition. Wiley: New York, 1981.
11. Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1993; 2:121-145.
12. Hedges LV. Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin 1982; 92:490-499.
13. 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. Research Synthesis Methods 2011; 2:254-270.
14. Kulinskaya E, Dollinger MB, Bjørkestøl K. Testing for homogeneity in meta-analysis I. The one-parameter case: standardized mean difference. Biometrics 2011; 67:203-212.
15. Biggerstaff BJ, Jackson D. The exact distribution of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic in one-way random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:6093-6110.
16. Preuss M, Ziegler A. A simplification and implementation of random-effects meta-analyses based on the exact distribution of Cochran's Q. Methods of Information in Medicine 2014; 53:54-61.
17. Mittlböck M, Heinzl H. A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:4321-4333.
18. Viechtbauer W. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:37-52.
19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:1539-1558.
20. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986; 7:177-188.
21. 2 can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2015; 15:35.
22. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (eds). Handbook of Mathematical Functions, (National Bureau of Standards, Applied Mathematics Series 25). U. S. Government Printing Office:, Washington, D.C., 1964.
23. Miettinen O. Estimability and estimation in case-referent studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 1976; 103:226-235.
24. Halperin M. Re: estimability and estimation in case-referent studies (letter to the editor). American Journal of Epidemiology 1977; 105:496-498.
25. Greenland S. A counterexample to the test-based principle of setting confidence limits. American Journal of Epidemiology 1984; 120:4-7.
26. Wilson EB, Hilferty MM. The distribution of chi-square. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1931; 17:684-688.
27. Kuss O. Statistical methods for meta-analyses including information from studies without any events-add nothing to nothing and succeed nevertheless. Statistics in Medicine 2015; 34:1097-1116.
28. 2 index? Psychological Methods 2006; 11:193-206.
29. 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008; 8:79.
30. Olkin I. Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1995; 48:133-146.
31. DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2007; 28:105-114.
32. Emerson JD, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F. A modified random-effect procedure for combining risk difference in sets of 2 × 2 tables from clinical trials. Journal of the Italian Statistical Society 1993; 2:269-290.
33. Shuster JJ. Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(12):1259-1265.
34. Hartung J, Knapp G. A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:3875-3889.
35. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:3153-3159.
36. IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014; 14:25.
37. Kulinskaya E, Dollinger MB. An accurate test for homogeneity of odds ratios based on Cochran's Q-statistic. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2015; 15:49.
38. Zelen M. The analysis of several 2 × 2 contingency tables. Biometrika 1971; 58:129-137.
39. Agresti A. A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Statistical Science 1992; 7:131-153.
40. Malzahn U, Böhning D, Holling H. Nonparametric estimation of heterogeneity variance for the standardised difference used in meta-analysis. Biometrika 2000; 87:619-632.
41. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. Simple heterogeneity variance estimation for meta-analysis. Applied Statistics 2005; 54:367-384.
42. Raghunathan TE, Ii Y. Analysis of binary data from a multicentre clinical trial. Biometrika 1993; 80:127-139.
43. Böhning D, Malzahn U, Dietz E, Schlattmann P. Some general points in estimating heterogeneity variance with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. Biostatistics 2002; 3:445-457.
44. Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61:41-51.