A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses
Top Cited Papers
- 6 September 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Research Synthesis Methods
- Vol. 10 (1), 83-98
- https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1316
Abstract
Studies combined in a meta‐analysis often have differences in their design and conduct that can lead to heterogeneous results. A random‐effects model accounts for these differences in the underlying study effects, which includes a heterogeneity variance parameter. The DerSimonian‐Laird method is often used to estimate the heterogeneity variance, but simulation studies have found the method can be biased and other methods are available. This paper compares the properties of nine different heterogeneity variance estimators using simulated meta‐analysis data. Simulated scenarios include studies of equal size and of moderate and large differences in size. Results confirm that the DerSimonian‐Laird estimator is negatively biased in scenarios with small studies, and in scenarios with a rare binary outcome. Results also show the Paule‐Mandel method has considerable positive bias in meta‐analyses with large differences in study size. We recommend the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) to estimate the heterogeneity variance over other methods. However, considering that meta‐analyses of health studies typically contain few studies, the heterogeneity variance estimate should not be used as a reliable gauge for the extent of heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. The estimated summary effect of the meta‐analysis and its confidence interval derived from the Hartung‐Knapp‐Sidik‐Jonkman method is more robust to changes in the heterogeneity variance estimate and shows minimal deviation from the nominal coverage of 95% under most of our simulated scenarios.Keywords
This publication has 50 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Re-Analysis of the Cochrane Library Data: The Dangers of Unobserved Heterogeneity in Meta-AnalysesPLOS ONE, 2013
- Meta-Analysis of Rare Binary Adverse Event DataJournal of the American Statistical Association, 2012
- Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysisBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2011
- Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised QstatisticsBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2011
- What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse dataStatistics in Medicine, 2004
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Nonparametric estimation of heterogeneity variance for the standardised difference used in meta-analysisBiometrika, 2000
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- Parametric Empirical Bayes Inference: Theory and ApplicationsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1983
- Maximum Likelihood Approaches to Variance Component Estimation and to Related ProblemsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1977