Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis

IntHout, Joanna; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Rovers, Maroeska M.; Goeman, Jelle J.

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247

Cited by 1,346 publications

(1,027 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

951

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Values of I 2 ≥ 25% indicate at least some (25% = low, 50% = moderate, 75% = high) heterogeneity, and thus point to the potential existence of moderator variables. In addition, we report 95% prediction intervals (PI; Borenstein et al, 2009; IntHout et al, 2016) indicating the distribution of true effects around the pooled mean effect. While the 95% CI is a measure for the precision of the mean effect, the 95% PI describes the range of effects that may be expected in future studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 78%

A Meta-Analysis on Antecedents and Outcomes of Detachment from Work

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detachment from work has been proposed as an important non-work experience helping employees to recover from work demands. This meta-analysis (86 publications, k = 91 independent study samples, N = 38,124 employees) examined core antecedents and outcomes of detachment in employee samples. With regard to outcomes, results indicated average positive correlations between detachment and self-reported mental (i.e., less exhaustion, higher life satisfaction, more well-being, better sleep) and physical (i.e., lower physical discomfort) health, state well-being (i.e., less fatigue, higher positive affect, more intensive state of recovery), and task performance (small to medium sized effects). However, average relationships between detachment and physiological stress indicators and work motivation were not significant while associations with contextual performance and creativity were significant, but negative. Concerning work characteristics, as expected, job demands were negatively related and job resources were positively related to detachment (small sized effects). Further, analyses revealed that person characteristics such as negative affectivity/neuroticism (small sized effect) and heavy work investment (medium sized effect) were negatively related to detachment whereas detachment and demographic variables (i.e., age and gender) were not related. Moreover, we found a medium sized average negative relationship between engagement in work-related activities during non-work time and detachment. For most of the examined relationships heterogeneity of effect sizes was moderate to high. We identified study design, samples' gender distribution, and affective valence of work-related thoughts as moderators for some of these aforementioned relationships. The results of this meta-analysis point to detachment as a non-work (recovery) experience that is influenced by work-related and personal characteristics which in turn is relevant for a range of employee outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 78%

A Meta-Analysis on Antecedents and Outcomes of Detachment from Work

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We ran random-effects meta-regression without moderators for each EF separately. Besides reporting on the confidence intervals (CIs) which quantify the precision of an estimated effect, in the results we also report prediction intervals (PIs) which present the expected range of true study effects in similar, new studies (IntHout et al 2016). It can be particularly informative to inspect PIs when there is high heterogeneity between studies included in a meta-analysis (IntHout et al 2016;Partlett and Riley 2017).…”

Section: Meta-regression Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Clinical Anxiety a Risk or a Protective Factor for Executive Functioning in Youth with ADHD? A Meta-regression Analysis

Marić

Bexkens

Bögels

2018

Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comorbidity rates between ADHD and anxiety disorders (AD) are high, but little is known about the nature of this cooccurrence. A dominant idea is that AD may intensify some (i.e., attention and working memory) and attenuate other (i.e., inhibition) ADHD symptoms. Results are mixed, potentially because of between-study differences. To investigate this further we performed a meta-regression analysis on 11 studies (n 'ADHD-only' = 695; n 'ADHD + AD' = 608), containing 35 effect sizes on attention, inhibition and working memory. Main results were: (1) no evidence of a negative effect of AD on attention and working memory; (2) better response inhibition in children with ADHD with AD than those with only ADHD (medium ES g = − .40); (3) medication moderated this association: the effect seemed limited to studies that included medication-naïve participants; (4) the difference between the two groups increased with age for attention and with proportion of boys for working memory ability. There was no effect of comorbid disruptive behavior disorder. In conclusion, AD seems to be a protective factor for inhibition problems as assessed with laboratory tasks in ADHD, especially in children who are medication naïve. Further, AD may have a protective function for attention in older children, and for working memory in boys with ADHD. It is therefore important to screen for AD when diagnosing ADHD, and to educate those with comorbid AD about the possible positive function of feeling anxious. Potential negative effects of ADHD medication on inhibition in children with comorbid AD should be considered.

show abstract

“…22 The prediction interval was calculated for the primary outcome (stone passage); this interval reflects the expected future benefits of treatment to patients. 23 Based on a priori decisions, we also performed subgroup analyses, stratifying by stone size and location. In some trials, the investigators reported outcomes in patients who had smaller versus larger ureteric stones; we used these size thresholds, ranging from 5 mm to 8 mm, to stratify the results.…”

Section: Data Synthesis and Primary Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis

Hollingsworth

Canales

Rogers

et al. 2016

BMJ

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and Medline databases and scientific meeting abstracts to July 2016.Review methods Randomized controlled trials of alpha blockers compared with placebo or control for treatment of ureteric stones were eligible.Two team members independently extracted data from each included study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who passed their stone. Secondary outcomes were the time to passage; the number of pain episodes; and the proportions of patients who underwent surgery, required admission to hospital, and experienced an adverse event. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary outcome with profile likelihood random effects models. Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions.Results 55 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence that alpha blockers facilitate passage of ureteric stones (risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.61). Based on a priori subgroup analysis, there seemed to be no benefit to treatment with alpha blocker among patients with smaller ureteric stones (1.19, 1.00 to 1.48). Patients with larger stones treated with an alpha blocker, however, had a 57% higher risk of stone passage compared with controls (1.57, 1.17 to 2.27). The effect of alpha blockers was independent of stone location (1.48 (1.05 to 2.10) for upper or middle stones; 1.49 (1.38 to 1.63) for lower stones). Compared with controls, patients who received alpha blockers had significantly shorter times to stone passage (mean difference −3.79 days, −4.45 to −3.14; moderate quality evidence), fewer episodes of pain (−0.74 episodes, −1.28 to −0.21; low quality evidence), lower risks of surgical intervention (risk ratio 0.44, 0.37 to 0.52; moderate quality evidence), and lower risks of admission to hospital (0.37, 0.22 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence). The risk of a serious adverse event was similar between treatment and control groups (1.49, 0.24 to 9.35; low quality evidence).Conclusions Alpha blockers seem efficacious in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. These results support current guideline recommendations advocating a role for alpha blockers in patients with ureteric stones.Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration No CRD42015024169.

show abstract

Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis

Cited by 1,346 publications

References 20 publications

A Meta-Analysis on Antecedents and Outcomes of Detachment from Work

A Meta-Analysis on Antecedents and Outcomes of Detachment from Work

Is Clinical Anxiety a Risk or a Protective Factor for Executive Functioning in Youth with ADHD? A Meta-regression Analysis

Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About