Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23494781›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2013

Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation.

Levente Kriston

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Effects of exercise interventions on social and cognitive functioning of men with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Levente KristonDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, D-20246, Hamburg, Germany. l.kriston@uke.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere is an ongoing debate how to interpret findings of meta-analyses when substantial clinical heterogeneity is present among included trials. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate various ways of dealing with clinical heterogeneity along with underlying assumptions and interpretation. A recent meta-analysis on long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (LTPP) was used as an illustrative example.

methodRe-analysis of published data including calculation of a prediction interval, heterogeneity tests, Bayesian meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis to explore and interpret summary estimates in clinically heterogeneous studies.

resultsMeta-analytic results and their implications varied considerably depending on whether and how clinical heterogeneity was addressed.

conclusionsWhether or not to trust summary estimates in meta-analysis depends largely on the subjective relevance of clinical heterogeneity present. No single analysis and interpretation strategy can be valid in every context or paradigm, thus, reflection of own beliefs on the role of heterogeneity is needed.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignStatistics as TopicBayes TheoremClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingHumansPsychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID23494781
PMCPMC6878481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.