This paper investigates the impact of the number of studies on meta-analysis and meta-regression within the random-effects model framework. It is frequently neglected that inference in random-effects models requires a substantial number of studies included in meta-analysis to guarantee reliable conclusions. Several authors warn about the risk of inaccurate results of the traditional DerSimonian and Laird approach especially in the common case of meta-analysis involving a limited number of studies. This paper presents a selection of likelihood and non-likelihood methods for inference in meta-analysis proposed to overcome the limitations of the DerSimonian and Laird procedure, with a focus on the effect of the number of studies. The applicability and the performance of the methods are investigated in terms of Type I error rates and empirical power to detect effects, according to scenarios of practical interest. Simulation studies and applications to real meta-analyses highlight that it is not possible to identify an approach uniformly superior to alternatives. The overall recommendation is to avoid the DerSimonian and Laird method when the number of meta-analysis studies is modest and prefer a more comprehensive procedure that compares alternative inferential approaches. R code for meta-analysis according to all of the inferential methods examined in the paper is provided.

This paper investigates the use of likelihood methods for meta-analysis, within the random-effects models framework. We show that likelihood inference relying on first-order approximations, while improving common meta-analysis techniques, can be prone to misleading results. This drawback is very evident in the case of small sample sizes, which are typical in meta-analysis. We alleviate the problem by exploiting the theory of higher-order asymptotics. In particular, we focus on a second-order adjustment to the log-likelihood ratio statistic. Simulation studies in meta-analysis and meta-regression show that higher-order likelihood inference provides much more accurate results than its first-order counterpart, while being of a computationally feasible form. We illustrate the application of the proposed approach on a real example.

No abstract

Bounded time series consisting of rates or proportions are often encountered in applications. This manuscript proposes a practical approach to analyze bounded time series, through a beta regression model. The method allows the direct interpretation of the regression parameters on the original response scale, while properly accounting for the heteroskedasticity typical of bounded variables. The serial dependence is modeled by a Gaussian copula, with a correlation matrix corresponding to a stationary autoregressive and moving average process. It is shown that inference, prediction, and control can be carried out straightforwardly, with minor modifications to standard analysis of autoregressive and moving average models. The methodology is motivated by an application to the influenza-like-illness incidence estimated by the Google R Flu Trends project.

Random-effects models are frequently used to synthesise information from different studies in meta-analysis. While likelihood-based inference is attractive both in terms of limiting properties and of implementation, its application in random-effects meta-analysis may result in misleading conclusions, especially when the number of studies is small to moderate. The current paper shows how methodology that reduces the asymptotic bias of the maximum likelihood estimator of the variance component can also substantially improve inference about the mean effect size. The results are derived for the more general framework of random-effects meta-regression, which allows the mean effect size to vary with study-specific covariates.