ArticleSystematic reviews2012
An empirical study using permutation-based resampling in meta-regression.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Associations between obstructive sleep apnea and Alzheimer's disease-related biomarkers (amyloid-β and tau) in blood and cerebrospinal fluid: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Metabolic syndrome and risk of incident all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2025Pooled it
- The effects of vitamin D supplementation on serum lipid profiles in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Variation in the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity: systematic review and meta-analysis of 193 international studies.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Prescribed Dose of Opioids and Overdose: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Unintentional Prescription Opioid Overdose.CNS drugs · 2018Pooled it
- Which Psychological Factors are Related to HIV Testing? A Quantitative Systematic Review of Global Studies.AIDS and behavior · 2016Pooled it
- Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Pooled it
- Vitamin D and subsequent all-age and premature mortality: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2013Pooled it
- Prevalence of workplace bullying among medical students: A meta-analysis and systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Systematic review of adherence to technology-based falls prevention programs for community-dwelling older adults: Reimagining future interventions.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- The emerging landscape of health research based on biobanks linked to electronic health records: Existing resources, statistical challenges, and potential opportunities.Statistics in medicine · 2020Article
- Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn meta-regression, as the number of trials in the analyses decreases, the risk of false positives or false negatives increases. This is partly due to the assumption of normality that may not hold in small samples. Creation of a distribution from the observed trials using permutation methods to calculate P values may allow for less spurious findings. Permutation has not been empirically tested in meta-regression. The objective of this study was to perform an empirical investigation to explore the differences in results for meta-analyses on a small number of trials using standard large sample approaches verses permutation-based methods for meta-regression.
methodsWe isolated a sample of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) for interventions that have a small number of trials (herbal medicine trials). Trials were then grouped by herbal species and condition and assessed for methodological quality using the Jadad scale, and data were extracted for each outcome. Finally, we performed meta-analyses on the primary outcome of each group of trials and meta-regression for methodological quality subgroups within each meta-analysis. We used large sample methods and permutation methods in our meta-regression modeling. We then compared final models and final P values between methods.
resultsWe collected 110 trials across 5 intervention/outcome pairings and 5 to 10 trials per covariate. When applying large sample methods and permutation-based methods in our backwards stepwise regression the covariates in the final models were identical in all cases. The P values for the covariates in the final model were larger in 78% (7/9) of the cases for permutation and identical for 22% (2/9) of the cases.
conclusionsWe present empirical evidence that permutation-based resampling may not change final models when using backwards stepwise regression, but may increase P values in meta-regression of multiple covariates for relatively small amount of trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.