1993
DOI: 10.1177/096228029300200202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Review papers : The statistical basis of meta-analysis

Abstract: Two models for study-to-study variation in a meta-analysis are presented, critiqued and illustrated. One, the fixed effects model, takes the studies being analysed as the universe of interest; the other, the random effects model, takes these studies as representing a sample from a larger population of possible studies. With emphasis on clinical trials, this paper illustrates in some detail the application of both models to three summary measures of the effect of an experimental intervention versus a control: t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
733
1
3

Year Published

1997
1997
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,130 publications
(760 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
2
733
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This was obtained by the calculation of the Z corresponding to each of these p levels (corresponding to the unpaired t-test performed on the data) and use these Z to compute a new Z corresponding to the p value of the combined effect size (for further details see Rosenthal, 1991). As we assumed variability to be due to both sampling error and random differences across studies, to combine study-to-study variations data were fitted to a random effects model as described by Fleiss (Fleiss, 1993), which provides more conservative estimates than a fixed effects model. Random effects are also more appropriate when heterogeneity is present in the results (Normand, 1999).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was obtained by the calculation of the Z corresponding to each of these p levels (corresponding to the unpaired t-test performed on the data) and use these Z to compute a new Z corresponding to the p value of the combined effect size (for further details see Rosenthal, 1991). As we assumed variability to be due to both sampling error and random differences across studies, to combine study-to-study variations data were fitted to a random effects model as described by Fleiss (Fleiss, 1993), which provides more conservative estimates than a fixed effects model. Random effects are also more appropriate when heterogeneity is present in the results (Normand, 1999).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A meta-analysis was carried out to assess the overall association of asymptomatic previously undiagnosed diabetes with the risk of all-cause and CVD mortality using a fixed effect approach according to known methods [25]. A fixed rather than a random effects approach was chosen because the statistic Q for measuring study-to-study variation in effect size was not statistically significant.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The meta-analysis was performed according to the procedures described by Mosteller and Chalmers, Glass et al and Fleiss [6,7,19]. To calculate simple proportions p(i) for each study, the number of patients with a certain surgical procedure and the number of patients with satisfactory results in the (i)th study were divided by the total number of patients n(i) in that study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%