Meta-analysis without study-specific variance information: Heterogeneity case

Abstract

The random effects model in meta-analysis is a standard statistical tool often used to analyze the effect sizes of the quantity of interest if there is heterogeneity between studies. In the special case considered here, meta-analytic data contain only the sample means in two treatment arms and the sample sizes, but no sample standard deviation. The statistical comparison between two arms for this case is not possible within the existing meta-analytic inference framework. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to estimate the overall mean difference and associated variances, the between-study variance and the within-study variance, as specified as the important elements in the random effects model. These estimators are obtained using maximum likelihood estimation. The standard errors of the estimators and a quantification of the degree of heterogeneity are also investigated. A measure of heterogeneity is suggested which adjusts the original suggested measure of Higgins' I for within study sample size. The performance of the proposed estimators is evaluated using simulations. It can be concluded that all estimated means converged to their associated true parameter values, and its standard errors tended to be small if the number of the studies involved in the meta-analysis was large. The proposed estimators could be favorably applied in a meta-analysis on comparing two surgeries for asymptomatic congenital lung malformations in young children.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes After Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis Versus Microfracture of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

“…A random-effects model using the restricted maximum likelihood method was applied, as this model has been known to allow greater generalization of conclusions for variable patient populations and different surgical procedures. 29,52 Forest plots were used to show the outcomes, pooled estimate of effect, and overall summary effect of each study and were constructed using OpenMeta[Analyst] (Brown University; http://www.cebm.brown.edu/openmeta). Additional analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Biostat) and R statistical software Version 3.4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).…”

Downtown Diet: a global meta-analysis of urbanization on consumption patterns of vertebrate predators

“…However, ~90% of included studies had no associated measure of within-study variance because the studies did not all use DEV as a response variable for individual samples. To address this limitation, we used a maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and a random effects model to estimate heterogeneity for each study's observed mean difference, enabling us to fill in missing variance values (Sangnawakij et al, 2017).…”

Dynamics, diversity and experimental precision in final irrigated rice testing: a time meta-analysis

“…In the fixed-effects model, it was assumed that the various studies contributing to the problem of interest share the same true effect size, so that the estimated parameter is a common effect size for all studies (Sangnawakij et al 2019). In this context, the effect caused by the data derived from different studies was taken into account as homogeneous in the fixed-effects model.…”

“…In contrast to the fixed regression model, the random-effects model treats the true effect size of the studies involved in the meta-analysis as a random sample of the population effect size distribution so that each group can contribute with a different effect (Sangnawakij et al 2019). In this context, the mixed regression model, similar to the fixed-effects model, takes into account the effect factor between groups (studies).…”