Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Röver, Christian ^a   Knapp, Guido ^b   Friede, Tim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b TU DORTMUND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Knapp Hartung adjustment; Random effects meta analysis; Rare diseases; Small populations

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SAMPLE SIZE; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84963850958     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0091-1     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press; 1985.
2. Hartung J, Knapp G, Sinha BK. Statistical Meta-analysis with Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley; 2008.
3. Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005; 30(3): 261-93. doi: 10.3102/10769986030003261.
4. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Stat Med. 2007; 26(9): 1964-81. doi: 10.1002/sim.2688.
5. Panityakul T, Bumrungsup C, Knapp G. On estimating heterogeneity in random-effects meta-regression: A comparative study. J Stat Theory and Appl. 2013; 12(3): 253-65. doi: 10.2991/jsta.2013.12.3.4.
6. Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, Bender R, Bowden J, Knapp G et al. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2015. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1164.
7. Follmann DA, Proschan MA. Valid inference in random effects meta-analysis. Biometrics. 1999; 55(3): 732-7. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00732.x.
8. Hartung J, Knapp G. On tests of the overall treatment effect in meta-analysis with normally distributed responses. Stat Med. 2001; 20(12): 1771-82. doi: 10.1002/sim.791.
9. Hartung J, Knapp G. A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat Med. 2001; 20(24): 3875-89. doi: 10.1002/sim.1009.
10. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(21): 3153-9. doi: 10.1002/sim.1262.
11. Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003; 22(17): 2693-710. doi: 10.1002/sim.1482.
12. 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 Med Res Method. 2014; 14: 25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-25.
13. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JPT Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012; 41(3): 818-27. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys041.
14. Kontopantelis E, Springate DA, Reeves D. A re-analysis of the Cochrane Library data: The dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta-analyses. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(7): 69930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069930.
15. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med. 2004; 23(11): 1663-82. doi: 10.1002/sim.1752.
16. European Commission. Communication from the Commission on Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Off J Eur Union. 2003; 46(C178): 2-8.
17. Gagne JJ, Thompson L, O'Keefe K, Kesselheim AS. Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare diseases: methodological review. BMJ. 2014; 349: 6802. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6802.
18. European Medicines Agency (EMEA). Guideline on clinical trials in small populations. CHMP/EWP/83561/2005. 2006. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Scientific-guideline/2009/09/WC500003615.pdf.
19. Korn EL, McShane LM, Freidlin B. Statistical challenges in the evaluation of treatments for small patient populations. Sci Transl Med. 2013; 178:. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004018.
20. Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J. Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 2011; 305(22): 2320-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.769.
21. IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Borm GF, Goeman JJ. Small studies are more heterogeneous than large ones: a meta-meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(8): 860-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.017.
22. Prakken B, Albani S, Martini A. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The Lancet. 2011; 377(9783): 2138-149. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60244-4.
23. Hinks A, Martin P, Flynn E, Eyre S, Packham J, Barton A, et al. Association of the CCR5 gene with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Genes & Immunity. 2010; 11(7): 584-9. doi: 10.1038/gene.2010.25.
24. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11): 1539-58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186.
25. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3): 177-88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
26. Böhning D, Malzahn U, Dietz E, Schlattmann P, Viwatwongkasem C, Biggeri A. Some general points in estimating heterogeneity variance with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. Biostat. 2002; 3(4): 445-57. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/3.4.445.
27. Raudenbush SW Analyzing effect sizes: random-effects models In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. p. 295-315.
28. Paule RC, Mandel J. Consensus values and weighting factors. J Res Natl Bur Stand. 1982; 87(5): 377-85.
29. Rukhin AL, Biggerstaff BJ, Vangel MG. Restricted maximum-likelihood estimation of a common mean and the Mandel-Paule algorithm. J Stat Plan Infer. 2000; 83(2): 319-30. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3758(99)00098-1.
30. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the meta for package. J Stat Soft. 2010; 36(3) doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
31. Schwarzer G. Meta: Meta-analysis with R. R package version 3.7-1. 2014. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=meta.
32. Hartung J. An alternative method for meta-analysis. Biom J. 1999; 41(8): 901-16. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199912)41:8<901::AID-BIMJ901>3.0.CO;2-W.
33. Jackson D, Riley RD. A refined method for multivariate meta-analysis and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2014; 33(4): 541-54. doi: 10.1002/sim.5957.
34. Dawid AP The well-calibrated Bayesian. J Am Stat Assoc. 1982; 77(379): 605-10. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1982.10477856.
35. Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Localio AR. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med. 2007; 26(1): 53-77. doi: 10.1002/sim.2528.
36. Kuß O. Statistical methods for meta-analyses including information from studies without any events - add nothing to nothing and succeed nevertheless. Stat Med. 2015; 34(7): 1097-116. doi: 10.1002/sim.6383.
37. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. http://www.r-project.org/.
38. Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F. Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 2008; 13(1): 31-48. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.31.
39. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. Authors' reply. Stat Med. 2004; 23(1): 159-62. doi: 10.1002/sim.1729.
40. Viechtbauer W. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2007; 26(1): 37-52. doi: 10.1002/sim.2514.
41. Gonnermann A, Framke T, Großhennig A, Koch A. No solution yet for combining two independent studies in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2015; 34(16): 2476-80. doi: 10.1002/sim.6473.
42. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001; 10(4): 277-303. doi: 10.1177/096228020101000404.
43. Turner RM, Jackson D, Wei Y, Thompson SG, Higgins PT. Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2015; 34(6): 984-98. doi: 10.1002/sim.6381.
44. Innovative methodology for small populations research (InSPiRe). http://www.warwick.ac.uk/inspire.