Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation

Clicks: 2
ID: 299445
2008
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #132 of 133 articles by views in International Journal of Epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 133 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background Several approaches are available for evaluating heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses are often used, but these are often implemented in various non-standardized ways. Methods We developed and implemented sequential and combinatorial algorithms that evaluate the change in between-study heterogeneity as one or more studies are excluded from the calculations. The algorithms exclude studies aiming to achieve either the maximum or the minimum final I2 below a desired pre-set threshold. We applied these algorithms in databases of meta-analyses of binary outcome and ≥4 studies from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 4, 2005, n = 1011) and meta-analyses of genetic associations (n = 50). Two I2 thresholds were used (50% and 25%). Results Both algorithms have succeeded in achieving the pre-specified final I2 thresholds. Differences in the number of excluded studies varied from 0% to 6% depending on the database and the heterogeneity threshold, while it was common to exclude different specific studies. Among meta-analyses with initial I2 > 50%, in the large majority [19 (90.5%) and 208 (85.9%) in genetic and Cochrane meta-analyses, respectively] exclusion of one or two studies sufficed to decrease I2 < 50%. Similarly, among meta-analyses with initial I2 > 25%, in most cases [16 (57.1%) and 382 (81.3%), respectively) exclusion of one or two studies sufficed to decrease heterogeneity even <25%. The number of excluded studies correlated modestly with initial estimated I2 (correlation coefficients 0.52–0.68 depending on algorithm used). Conclusions The proposed algorithms can be routinely applied in meta-analyses as standardized sensitivity analyses for heterogeneity. Caution is needed evaluating post hoc which specific studies are responsible for the heterogeneity.
Reference Key
openalex_W2112970335 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Nikolaos A. Patsopoulos, Εvangelos Εvangelou, John P. A. Ioannidis
Journal International Journal of Epidemiology
Year 2008
DOI
10.1093/ije/dyn065
URL
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/37/5/1148/18480186/dyn065.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.