A brief note on the random-effects meta-analysis model and its relationship to other models

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111492
Joanne E. McKenzie , Areti Angeliki Veroniki
{"title":"A brief note on the random-effects meta-analysis model and its relationship to other models","authors":"Joanne E. McKenzie ,&nbsp;Areti Angeliki Veroniki","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining quantitative results across studies. A fundamental decision in undertaking a meta-analysis is choosing an appropriate model for analysis. This is the second of two companion articles which have the joint aim of describing the different meta-analysis models. In the first article, we focused on the common-effect (also known as fixed-effect [singular]) model, and in this article, we focus on the random-effects model. We describe the key assumptions underlying the random-effects model, how it is related to the common-effect and fixed-effects [plural] models, and present some of the arguments for selecting one model over another. We outline some of the methods for fitting a random-effects model. Finally, we present an illustrative example to demonstrate how the results can differ depending on the chosen model and method. Understanding the assumptions of the different meta-analysis models, and the questions they address, is critical for meta-analysis model selection and interpretation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 111492"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624002488/pdfft?md5=db7f30882c8d852787704596a142ef55&pid=1-s2.0-S0895435624002488-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624002488","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining quantitative results across studies. A fundamental decision in undertaking a meta-analysis is choosing an appropriate model for analysis. This is the second of two companion articles which have the joint aim of describing the different meta-analysis models. In the first article, we focused on the common-effect (also known as fixed-effect [singular]) model, and in this article, we focus on the random-effects model. We describe the key assumptions underlying the random-effects model, how it is related to the common-effect and fixed-effects [plural] models, and present some of the arguments for selecting one model over another. We outline some of the methods for fitting a random-effects model. Finally, we present an illustrative example to demonstrate how the results can differ depending on the chosen model and method. Understanding the assumptions of the different meta-analysis models, and the questions they address, is critical for meta-analysis model selection and interpretation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于随机效应荟萃分析模型及其与其他模型关系的简要说明。
荟萃分析是一种统计方法,用于综合各项研究的定量结果。进行荟萃分析的一个基本决策是选择合适的分析模型。本文是两篇配套文章中的第二篇,旨在介绍不同的荟萃分析模型。在第一篇文章中,我们重点介绍了共同效应模型(也称为固定效应模型[singular]),而在本文中,我们将重点介绍随机效应模型。我们将介绍随机效应模型的主要假设、它与共效模型和固定效应模型(复数)的关系,并提出选择一种模型而非另一种模型的一些论据。我们概述了拟合随机效应模型的一些方法。最后,我们举例说明所选模型和方法不同,结果也会不同。了解不同荟萃分析模型的假设及其所要解决的问题对于荟萃分析模型的选择和解释至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
期刊最新文献
Research culture influences in health and biomedical research: Rapid scoping review and content analysis. Corrigendum to 'Avoiding searching for outcomes called for additional search strategies: a study of cochrane review searches' [Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 149 (2022) 83-88]. A methodological review identified several options for utilizing registries for randomized controlled trials. Real-time Adaptive Randomization of Clinical Trials. Some superiority trials with non-significant results published in high impact factor journals correspond to non-inferiority situations: a research-on-research study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1