{"title":"正常数据对数响应比荟萃分析中估计研究间方差和总体效应的模拟研究","authors":"Ilyas Bakbergenuly, D. Hoaglin, E. Kulinskaya","doi":"10.31222/osf.io/3bnxs","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Methods for random-effects meta-analysis require an estimate of the between-study variance, $\\tau^2$. The performance of estimators of $\\tau^2$ (measured by bias and coverage) affects their usefulness in assessing heterogeneity of study-level effects, and also the performance of related estimators of the overall effect. For the effect measure log-response-ratio (LRR, also known as the logarithm of the ratio of means, RoM), we review four point estimators of $\\tau^2$ (the popular methods of DerSimonian-Laird (DL), restricted maximum likelihood, and Mandel and Paule (MP), and the less-familiar method of Jackson), four interval estimators for $\\tau^2$ (profile likelihood, Q-profile, Biggerstaff and Jackson, and Jackson), five point estimators of the overall effect (the four related to the point estimators of $\\tau^2$ and an estimator whose weights use only study-level sample sizes), and seven interval estimators for the overall effect (four based on the point estimators for $\\tau^2$, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) interval, a modification of HKSJ that uses the MP estimator of $\\tau^2$ instead of the DL estimator, and an interval based on the sample-size-weighted estimator). We obtain empirical evidence from extensive simulations of data from normal distributions. Simulations from lognormal distributions are in a separate report Bakbergenuly et al. 2019b.","PeriodicalId":186390,"journal":{"name":"arXiv: Methodology","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Simulation study of estimating between-study variance and overall effect in meta-analyses of log-response-ratio for normal data\",\"authors\":\"Ilyas Bakbergenuly, D. Hoaglin, E. Kulinskaya\",\"doi\":\"10.31222/osf.io/3bnxs\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Methods for random-effects meta-analysis require an estimate of the between-study variance, $\\\\tau^2$. The performance of estimators of $\\\\tau^2$ (measured by bias and coverage) affects their usefulness in assessing heterogeneity of study-level effects, and also the performance of related estimators of the overall effect. For the effect measure log-response-ratio (LRR, also known as the logarithm of the ratio of means, RoM), we review four point estimators of $\\\\tau^2$ (the popular methods of DerSimonian-Laird (DL), restricted maximum likelihood, and Mandel and Paule (MP), and the less-familiar method of Jackson), four interval estimators for $\\\\tau^2$ (profile likelihood, Q-profile, Biggerstaff and Jackson, and Jackson), five point estimators of the overall effect (the four related to the point estimators of $\\\\tau^2$ and an estimator whose weights use only study-level sample sizes), and seven interval estimators for the overall effect (four based on the point estimators for $\\\\tau^2$, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) interval, a modification of HKSJ that uses the MP estimator of $\\\\tau^2$ instead of the DL estimator, and an interval based on the sample-size-weighted estimator). We obtain empirical evidence from extensive simulations of data from normal distributions. Simulations from lognormal distributions are in a separate report Bakbergenuly et al. 2019b.\",\"PeriodicalId\":186390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv: Methodology\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv: Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/3bnxs\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv: Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/3bnxs","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Simulation study of estimating between-study variance and overall effect in meta-analyses of log-response-ratio for normal data
Methods for random-effects meta-analysis require an estimate of the between-study variance, $\tau^2$. The performance of estimators of $\tau^2$ (measured by bias and coverage) affects their usefulness in assessing heterogeneity of study-level effects, and also the performance of related estimators of the overall effect. For the effect measure log-response-ratio (LRR, also known as the logarithm of the ratio of means, RoM), we review four point estimators of $\tau^2$ (the popular methods of DerSimonian-Laird (DL), restricted maximum likelihood, and Mandel and Paule (MP), and the less-familiar method of Jackson), four interval estimators for $\tau^2$ (profile likelihood, Q-profile, Biggerstaff and Jackson, and Jackson), five point estimators of the overall effect (the four related to the point estimators of $\tau^2$ and an estimator whose weights use only study-level sample sizes), and seven interval estimators for the overall effect (four based on the point estimators for $\tau^2$, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) interval, a modification of HKSJ that uses the MP estimator of $\tau^2$ instead of the DL estimator, and an interval based on the sample-size-weighted estimator). We obtain empirical evidence from extensive simulations of data from normal distributions. Simulations from lognormal distributions are in a separate report Bakbergenuly et al. 2019b.