Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25196829›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2014

Methods for calculating confidence and credible intervals for the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models.

Dan Jackson, Rebecca Turner, Kirsty Rhodes, Wolfgang Viechtbauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of [Frontiers in medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Decision Tree for Key Comparisons.Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. When should meta-analysis avoid making hidden normality assumptions?Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2018
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

4 authors.

Dan JacksonMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK. dan.jackson@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk.
Rebecca Turner
Kirsty Rhodes
Wolfgang Viechtbauer

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105260558
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalTooth ExtractionAcetaminophenAnalysis of VarianceBayes TheoremConfidence IntervalsHumansMolar, ThirdPainPain ManagementRegression AnalysisAcetaminophen

Identifiers

PMID25196829
PMCPMC4160560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.