Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates

Hedges, Larry V.; Tipton, Elizabeth; Johnson, Matthew C.

doi:10.1002/jrsm.5

Cited by 1,672 publications

(1,894 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,887

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, if one incorporates weights based on the standard error or variance of estimates, it seems advisable to account for between study heterogeneity through random effects as discussed above and presented in columns (3) and (6). Finally, column (6) presents results applying a recently developed method that accounts for dependency among effect sizes (multiple, correlated estimates per study) (see Hedges et al 2010;Tanner-Smith and Tipton 2014). Again, results are in line with our main results, although with deflated expectations about the average effect in the whole sample of studies.…”

Section: Appendix C: Robustness Checkssupporting

confidence: 80%

Does Financial Education Impact Financial Literacy and Financial Behavior, and If So, When?

Kaiser¹,

Menkhoff²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.

show abstract

Section: Appendix C: Robustness Checkssupporting

confidence: 80%

Does Financial Education Impact Financial Literacy and Financial Behavior, and If So, When?

Kaiser¹,

Menkhoff²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead of arbitrarily choosing one of several tests from a RCT, we synthesized all of them and accounted for their correlations by calculating robust variance estimates. 34 The third challenge was integrating results from the various cognitive domains for detecting an overall signal regarding the cognitive effects of statins. To this end, we calculated an omnibus overall measure of cognition across all cognitive domains.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Statins Impair Cognition? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in metaanalyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95 % confidence interval, CI, −0.01 to 0.03, p=0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference −0.05, 95 % CI −0.19 to 0.10, p=0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

show abstract

“…Subgroup analyses according to type of maternal diabetes (type 1 diabetes and GDM) and offspring sex were carried out. Differences between subgroups were tested for significance using metaregression: each type-specific result was treated as one study, and robust variance estimation with hierarchical weights was used to allow for dependencies between type-specific results from the same study [15]. Where studies only reported data for different types of diabetes, pooled means and SD were calculated for all diabetes types combined.…”

Section: Data Extraction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The diabetic pregnancy and offspring blood pressure in childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aceti¹,

Santhakumaran²,

Logan³

et al. 2012

Diabetologia

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims/hypothesis Offspring of diabetic mothers have increased risk of the metabolic syndrome in adulthood. Studies examining BP in offspring of diabetic mothers have conflicting conclusions. We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting offspring BP in children born to diabetic mothers. Methods Citations were identified in PubMed. Authors were contacted for additional data. Systolic and diastolic BP in offspring of diabetic mothers and controls were compared. Subgroup analysis of type of maternal diabetes and offspring sex were performed. Fixed-effects models were used, and random-effects models where significant heterogeneity was present. Meta-regression was used to test the relationship between offspring systolic BP and prepregnancy BMI. Results Fifteen studies were included in the review and 13 in the meta-analysis. Systolic BP was higher in offspring of diabetic mothers (mean difference 1.88 mmHg [95% CI 0.47, 3.28]; p00.009). Offspring of mothers with gestational diabetes had similar diastolic BP to controls, but higher systolic BP (1.39 mmHg [95% CI 0.00, 2.77]; p00.05); results for type 1 diabetes were inconclusive and there were no separate data available on offspring of type 2 diabetic mothers. Male offspring of diabetic mothers had higher systolic BP (2.01 mmHg [95% CI 0.93, 3.10]; p00.0003) and diastolic BP (1.12 mmHg [95% CI 0.36, 1.88]; p00.004) than controls; in female offspring there was no difference (systolic: 0.54 mmHg [95% CI −1.83, 2.90], p00.66; diastolic: 0.51 mmHg [95% CI −1.07, 2.09], p00.52). The correlation between offspring systolic BP and maternal prepregnancy BMI was not significant (p00.37). Conclusions/interpretation Offspring of diabetic mothers have higher systolic BP than controls. Differences related to sex and type of maternal diabetes require further investigation.

show abstract

Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates

Cited by 1,672 publications

References 22 publications

Does Financial Education Impact Financial Literacy and Financial Behavior, and If So, When?

Does Financial Education Impact Financial Literacy and Financial Behavior, and If So, When?

Do Statins Impair Cognition? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The diabetic pregnancy and offspring blood pressure in childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About