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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 111492 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |
| Volume | 174 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2024 |
Keywords
- Clinical and methodological diversity
- Common-effect
- Fixed-effects
- Meta-analysis
- Random-effects
- Statistical heterogeneity
Projects
- 1 Active
-
Improving evidence synthesis methods to enhance decision making about public health and policy interventions
McKenzie, J. (Primary Chief Investigator (PCI))
NHMRC - National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
1/01/22 → 31/12/26
Project: Research
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver