2008
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn065
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation

Abstract: The proposed algorithms can be routinely applied in meta-analyses as standardized sensitivity analyses for heterogeneity. Caution is needed evaluating post hoc which specific studies are responsible for the heterogeneity.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
636
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 871 publications
(636 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
636
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The fixed-effects would be used when the heterogeneity was not significant with the I² < 50% or p > 0.10, otherwise, the randomeffects would be used. The sensitivity analysis was used to confirm the robustness of the pooled results in analysis with significant heterogeneity [18]. The subgroup analysis by different techniques of radiosurgery would be conducted if there was a significant heterogeneity (I² > 50% or p < 0.10) between the included studies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fixed-effects would be used when the heterogeneity was not significant with the I² < 50% or p > 0.10, otherwise, the randomeffects would be used. The sensitivity analysis was used to confirm the robustness of the pooled results in analysis with significant heterogeneity [18]. The subgroup analysis by different techniques of radiosurgery would be conducted if there was a significant heterogeneity (I² > 50% or p < 0.10) between the included studies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 If no significant covariates were found to be heterogeneous, we carried out the "leave-one-out" sensitive analysis to access the key studies which has substantial impact on between-study heterogeneity. 17 Subgroup analyses were applied to evaluate potential effect modification of variables including geographic locations, number of cases, dietary assessment, source of controls (population-based or hospital based), histological type, study design (cohort or case-control) and adjustment for potential confounders (yes or no). Begger's Funnel plots and Egger's tests were performed to assess the publication bias, and p < 0.05 was considered to be significant.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If above 50% or 75%, it is considered heterogeneous or highly heterogeneous, respectively. If I 2 is below 25%, it is considered homogeneous (Nikolaos, Evangelos, & John, 2008).…”
Section: )Homogeneitytestmentioning
confidence: 99%