The Hartung-Knapp modification for random-effects meta-analysis: A useful refinement but are there any residual concerns?

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 36, Issue 25, 2017, Pages 3923-3934

  Jackson, Dan ^a   Law, Martin ^a   Rücker, Gerta ^b   Schwarzer, Guido ^b  

^a MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

random effects models; small sample inference; statistical conventions

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; MODEL; TAXONOMY; CLASSIFICATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); STATISTICAL MODEL;

CLASSIFICATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 85026407801     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.7411     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2009;172:137-159.
2. Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JPT. The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:646-654.
3. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-188.
4. Jackson D, Bowden J, Baker R. Approximate confidence intervals for moment-based estimators of the between-study variance in random effects meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6:372-382.
5. Jackson D, Bowden J, Baker R. Hoes does the DerSimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts? J Stat Plann Inference. 2010;140:961-970.
6. Hartung J. An alternative method for meta-analysis. Biometrical J. 1999;41:901-916.
7. Hartung J, Knapp G. On tests of the overall treatment effect in meta-analysis with normally distributed responses. Stat Med. 2001;20:1771-1782.
8. Hartung J, Knapp G. A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat Med. 2001;20:3875-3889.
9. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:3153-3159.
10. Copas J. Letters to the editor. Stat Med. 2003;22:2667-2668.
11. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. Authors reply. Stat Med. 2004;23:159-162.
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 Research Method. 2014;14:25.
13. Röver C, Knapp G, Friede T. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies. BMC Med Res Method. 2015;15:99.
14. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Software. 2010;36:1-48.
15. Schwarzer G. meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7:40-45.
16. Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003;22:2293-2710.
17. Jackson D, Riley RD. A refined method for multivariate meta-analysis and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2014;33:541-554.
18. Jackson D, Bowden J. A re-evaluation of the ‘quantile approximation method’ for random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2009;28:338-348.
19. Noma H. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections. Stat Med. 2011;30:3304-3312.
20. Baker R, Jackson D. Meta-analysis inside and outside particle physics: two traditions that should converge? Res Synth Methods. 2013;4:109-124.
21. Jackson D, Baker R. Meta-analysis inside and outside particle physics: convergence using the path of least resistance? Res Synth Methods. 2013;4:125-126.
22. Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, et al. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7:55-79.
23. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-1558.
24. Knapp G, Biggerstaff BJ, Harting J. Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis. Biometrical J. 2006;48:271-285.
25. Viechtbauer W. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2007;26:37-52.
26. Hoaglin D. Misunderstandings about Q and ‘Cochran's Q test' in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2016;35:485-495.
27. Wiksten A, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. Hartung-Knapp method is not always conservative compared to fixed effect meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2016;35:2503-2515.
28. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:818-827.
29. Casella G. Conditional inference from confidence sets. Current Issues in Statistical Inference: Essays in Honor of D. Basu, Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, vol. 17. California: Institute of Mathematical Statistics; 1992:1-12.
30. Poole C, Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:1-12.
31. Paule RC, Mandel J. Concensus values and weighting factors. J Res Nat Bur Stand. 1982;87:377-385.
32. Rukhin AL. Estimating common mean and heterogeneity variance in two study case meta-analysis. Stat Probab Lett. 2012;82:1318-1325.
33. Jackson D. The significance level of the standard test for a treatment effect in meta-analysis. Stat Biopharm Res. 2009;1:92-100.
34. Normand SL. Tutorial in Biostatistics. Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining and reporting. Stat Med. 1999;18:321-359.
35. Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JPT. Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Method. 2011;11:160.