ArticleBMC medical research methodology2014
Methods for calculating confidence and credible intervals for the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preoperative Inflammatory Blood Indices as Prognostic Markers in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Lung cancer screening completion among patients using decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of [Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions to mitigate cancer-related medical financial hardship: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer · 2024Pooled it
- On the Q statistic with constant weights in meta-analysis of binary outcomes.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of TCMs with anti-inflammatory effect in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Pooled it
- A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis for Identifying the Optimal Taxane-Based Chemotherapy Regimens for Treating Gastric Cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Contribution of polymorphisms in IKZF1 gene to childhood acute leukemia: a meta-analysis of 33 case-control studies.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- From Five-Number Summary to Absolute Heterogeneity: Recent Methodological Advances in Meta-Analysis With Continuous Outcomes.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Review
- Effect of acupuncture combined with rehabilitation training on sensory impairment of patients with stroke: a network meta-analysis.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Article
- [Relation between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barre syndrome in adults. Systematic review].Neurologia · 2021Article
- Decision Tree for Key Comparisons.Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2021Article
- Comparative efficacy, safety and cost of oral Chinese patent medicines for rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
- Statistical properties of methods based on the Q-statistic for constructing a confidence interval for the between-study variance in meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2019Article
- When should meta-analysis avoid making hidden normality assumptions?Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2018Review
- Multistep estimators of the between-study variance: The relationship with the Paule-Mandel estimator.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
- The Optimal Chinese Herbal Injections for Use With Radiotherapy to Treat Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Paule-Mandel estimators for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects.Research synthesis methods · 2017Article
- Implementing informative priors for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using meta-regression and pseudo data.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
- Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails?BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeta-regression is becoming increasingly used to model study level covariate effects. However this type of statistical analysis presents many difficulties and challenges. Here two methods for calculating confidence intervals for the magnitude of the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models are developed. A further suggestion for calculating credible intervals using informative prior distributions for the residual between-study variance is presented.
methodsTwo recently proposed and, under the assumptions of the random effects model, exact methods for constructing confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random effects meta-analyses are extended to the meta-regression setting. The use of Generalised Cochran heterogeneity statistics is extended to the meta-regression setting and a Newton-Raphson procedure is developed to implement the Q profile method for meta-analysis and meta-regression. WinBUGS is used to implement informative priors for the residual between-study variance in the context of Bayesian meta-regressions.
resultsResults are obtained for two contrasting examples, where the first example involves a binary covariate and the second involves a continuous covariate. Intervals for the residual between-study variance are wide for both examples.
conclusionsStatistical methods, and R computer software, are available to compute exact confidence intervals for the residual between-study variance under the random effects model for meta-regression. These frequentist methods are almost as easily implemented as their established counterparts for meta-analysis. Bayesian meta-regressions are also easily performed by analysts who are comfortable using WinBUGS. Estimates of the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regressions should be routinely reported and accompanied by some measure of their uncertainty. Confidence and/or credible intervals are well-suited to this purpose.
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.