Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26343745›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2015

Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.

Rebecca DerSimonian, Nan Laird

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,336 papers, 108 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,336citing papers in PubMed, 108 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

1,336 citing papers in PubMed, 108 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Dual Use of Electronic and Combustible Cigarettes and Stroke Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2026
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

1,276 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Rebecca DerSimonianNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: DerSimonian@nih.gov.
Nan LairdHarvard University, TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: nanlaird@gmail.com.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 AI999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we revisit a 1986 article we published in this Journal, Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials, where we introduced a random-effects model to summarize the evidence about treatment efficacy from a number of related clinical trials. Because of its simplicity and ease of implementation, our approach has been widely used (with more than 12,000 citations to date) and the "DerSimonian and Laird method" is now often referred to as the 'standard approach' or a 'popular' method for meta-analysis in medical and clinical research. The method is especially useful for providing an overall effect estimate and for characterizing the heterogeneity of effects across a series of studies. Here, we review the background that led to the original 1986 article, briefly describe the random-effects approach for meta-analysis, explore its use in various settings and trends over time and recommend a refinement to the method using a robust variance estimator for testing overall effect. We conclude with a discussion of repurposing the method for Big Data meta-analysis and Genome Wide Association Studies for studying the importance of genetic variants in complex diseases.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalResearch DesignClinical Trials as TopicGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansBig DataClinical trialsGenome Wide Association StudiesHeterogeneityMeta-analysisRandom-effects model

Identifiers

PMID26343745
PMCPMC4639420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.