The impact of using different random-effects models in meta-analysis: a case study on the cognitive functioning of preterm-born children
Clicks: 1
ID: 315930
2026
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.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #286 of 305 articles by views in american 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 305 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate 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
Abstract
Random-effects meta-analysis typically assumes a normal distribution for the underlying effects of the studies. However, under certain conditions, this assumption may not be the most appropriate. Simulation studies comparing several alternative random-effects models have found small differences in bias but larger differences in coverage probabilities and precision. To investigate the impact of using different meta-analysis models, we used a meta-analysis of 58 cohort studies comparing the cognitive functioning between preterm- and term-born children. We compared the results between seven different random-effects models based on: asymmetric distributions, mixtures of distributions and Dirichlet process (DP) prior. Sensitivity analysis using variations of the seven main models was also performed. While estimates for mean treatment effect were similar across models, the between-study variance estimates were identical. Asymmetric distribution models indicated studies with extreme effects and a left-shifted random-effects distribution while mixture models were less informative. DP models revealed clusters of studies with similar characteristics, suggesting that the observed heterogeneity may be partially explained by certain methodological and clinical characteristics of the studies. Overall, our study highlights that applying various meta-analysis models might not affect materially the summary estimates but may provide better insights into the underlying effects' distribution and the explanation of between-study variance.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7163556171
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Kanella Panagiotopoulou, Soodabeh Behboodi, Jennifer Zeitlin, Anna Chaimani |
| Journal | american journal of epidemiology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/aje/kwag120
|
| URL | |
| 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.