Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Related collections

Most cited references 4

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

Rebecca DerSimonian, Nan Laird (1986)

0 comments Cited 3437 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study.

Julie A. Thomas, J. Smith, D J Spiegelhalter (1995)

Current methods for meta-analysis still leave a number of unresolved issues, such as the choice between fixed- and random-effects models, the choice of population distribution in a random-effects analysis, the treatment of small studies and extreme results, and incorporation of study-specific covariates. We describe how a full Bayesian analysis can deal with these and other issues in a natural way, illustrated by a recent published example that displays a number of problems. Such analyses are now generally available using the BUGS implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo numerical integration techniques. Appropriate proper prior distributions are derived, and sensitivity analysis to a variety of prior assumptions carried out. Current methods are briefly summarized and compared to the full Bayes analysis.