CommentaryCombining heterogenous studies using the random-effects model is a mistake and leads to inconclusive meta-analyses
References (28)
- et al.
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature
J Clin Epidemiol
(2000) - et al.
A treatment should be evaluated by small trials
J Clin Epidemiol
(2009) Modelling methodologic quality into meta-analyses and pitfalls of not doing this
Ann Thorac Surg
(2009)Mega-trials and management of acute myocardial infarction
Lancet
(1995)- et al.
Combining studies using effect sizes and quality scores: application to bone loss in postmenopausal women
J Clin Epidemiol
(1998) - et al.
Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials
N Engl J Med
(1997) - et al.
Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses
Ann Intern Med
(2001) - et al.
Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned
J Clin Epidemiol
(2006) - et al.
No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies
BMC Med Res Methodol
(2005) - et al.
Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials
JAMA
(2002)
The influence of methodologic quality on the conclusion of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions
Biostatistics
The evidence provided by a single trial is less reliable than its statistical analysis suggests
J Clin Epidemiol
The influence of methodologic quality on the conclusion of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
Cited by (77)
Prevalence of Candida Species in Endodontic Infections: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
2018, Journal of EndodonticsNonphysician Out-of-Hospital Rapid Sequence Intubation Success and Adverse Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2017, Annals of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Meta-analyses of heterogeneous studies are often performed with the random-effects model26; however, our analysis was completed with the quality-effects model described by Doi et al27 and Doi and Thalib.28 The quality-effects model adjusts for study-level risk of bias and has advantages over the random-effects model, given that the latter model estimate does not allow direct interpretation.29 Also, the random-effects estimator suffers from faulty error estimation so that CIs generated are too narrow,30 and the random-effects model also exacerbates estimation of publication bias.31
The Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Defibrillator Conundrum: Is a Meta-Analysis Enough?
2017, JACC: Clinical ElectrophysiologyA logician's approach to meta-analysis with unexplained heterogeneity
2017, Journal of Biomedical InformaticsCitation Excerpt :However, this random-effects approach is sometimes criticised. As advocated in [31], large heterogeneity in no way indicates that smaller studies should be more trusted nor that there is a fault in bigger studies. The approach proposed later in this paper preserves the weights of big studies and thus it should not be susceptible to such a criticism.