CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.
Tags

Valid Inference in Random Effects Meta-Analysis

by: Dean A. Follmann, Michael A. Proschan
Biometrics, Vol. 55, No. 3. (1999), pp. 732-737, doi:10.2307/2533597  Key: citeulike:4278843

Formatted Citation


Show HTML

Likes (beta)

This copy of the article hasn't been liked by anyone yet.

View FullText article


Abstract

The standard approach to inference for random effects meta-analysis relies on approximating the null distribution of a test statistic by a standard normal distribution. This approximation is asymptotic on k, the number of studies, and can be substantially in error in medical meta-analyses, which often have only a few studies. This paper proposes permutation and ad hoc methods for testing with the random effects model. Under the group permutation method, we randomly switch the treatment and control group labels in each trial. This idea is similar to using a permutation distribution for a community intervention trial where communities are randomized in pairs. The permutation method theoretically controls the type I error rate for typical meta-analyses scenarios. We also suggest two ad hoc procedures. Our first suggestion is to use a t-reference distribution with k - 1 degrees of freedom rather than a standard normal distribution for the usual random effects test statistic. We also investigate the use of a simple t-statistic on the reported treatment effects.


PsyStat's tags for this article

Citations (CiTO)

No CiTO relationships defined

X There are no reviews yet

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History


X Export records

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.