
pmid: 7746979
AbstractMany meta‐analyses use a random‐effects model to account for heterogeneity among study results, beyond the variation associated with fixed effects. A random‐effects regression approach for the synthesis of 2 × 2 tables allows the inclusion of covariates that may explain heterogeneity. A simulation study found that the random‐effects regression method performs well in the context of a meta‐analysis of the efficacy of a vaccine for the prevention of tuberculosis, where certain factors are thought to modify vaccine efficacy. A smoothed estimator of the within‐study variances produced less bias in the estimated regression coefficients. The method provided very good power for detecting a non‐zero intercept term (representing overall treatment efficacy) but low power for detecting a weak covariate in a meta‐analysis of 10 studies. We illustrate the model by exploring the relationship between vaccine efficacy and one factor thought to modify efficacy. The model also applies to the meta‐analysis of continuous outcomes when covariates are present.
Clinical Trials as Topic, Models, Statistical, Bias, Meta-Analysis as Topic, BCG Vaccine, Confidence Intervals, Humans, Regression Analysis, Tuberculosis, Probability
Clinical Trials as Topic, Models, Statistical, Bias, Meta-Analysis as Topic, BCG Vaccine, Confidence Intervals, Humans, Regression Analysis, Tuberculosis, Probability
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 721 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 0.1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
