Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis

Statistics in Medicine - Tập 21 Số 11 - Trang 1539-1558 - 2002
Julian P. T. Higgins1, Simon G. Thompson
1MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK. [email protected]

Tóm tắt

Abstract

The extent of heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between‐study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta‐analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta‐analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the χ2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta‐analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta‐analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of H that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta‐analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta‐analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

10.2307/3001666

10.1002/sim.4780101105

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<841::AID-SIM781>3.0.CO;2-D

10.1136/bmj.317.7153.235

Beale RJ, 1998, Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: Analysis is superficial and conclusions exaggerated, British Medical Journal, 317, 884

10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08165-8

10.7326/0003-4819-117-1-59

FioravantiM YanagiM.Cytidinediphosphocholine (CDP choline) for cognitive and behavioural disturbances associated with chronic cerebral disorders in the elderly (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Update Software: Oxford 2000 Issue 3.

ParkerMJ HandollHHG.Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures (Cochrane review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Update Software: Oxford 2000 Issue 3.

10.1016/S0033-0620(85)80003-7

10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009981

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), 2000, How to Review the Evidence: Systematic Identification and Review of the Scientific Literature

10.2307/2290987

10.1002/sim.4780070807

The Cochrane Collaboration.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Update Software: Oxford 2001 Issue 2.

Kish L, 1965, Survey Sampling

10.1002/sim.4780080408

10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::AID-SIM491>3.0.CO;2-P

10.1177/096228029300200205

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::AID-SIM235>3.0.CO;2-V

SpiegelhalterDJ ThomasA BestNG GilksWR. BUGS: Bayesian Inference Using Gibbs Sampling. Version 0.50. MRC Biostatistics Unit: Cambridge 1995.

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::AID-SIM494>3.0.CO;2-G

10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112220

Abramowitz M, 1965, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960330)15:6<619::AID-SIM188>3.0.CO;2-A

10.1002/sim.4780142408

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Statistics in Medicine

Tập 21 Số 11

1539-1558

Thông tin tác giả