ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
A random effects meta-analysis model with Box-Cox transformation.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Interrupting Prolonged Sitting with Physical Activity Breaks on Blood Glucose, Insulin and Triacylglycerol Measures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Pooled it
- Assessing the Distribution of Potentially Toxic Elements in Bryophytes in Relation to Surface Soil Contamination in the Veles Region, North Macedonia.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of early vitamin A supplementation on bronchopulmonary dysplasia in premature infants.Translational pediatrics · 2022Article
- Biological correlates before esophageal cancer screening and after diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Female Volleyball Players Are More Prone to Cortisol Anticipatory Stress Response than Sedentary Women.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a random effects meta-analysis model, true treatment effects for each study are routinely assumed to follow a normal distribution. However, normality is a restrictive assumption and the misspecification of the random effects distribution may result in a misleading estimate of overall mean for the treatment effect, an inappropriate quantification of heterogeneity across studies and a wrongly symmetric prediction interval.
methodsWe focus on problems caused by an inappropriate normality assumption of the random effects distribution, and propose a novel random effects meta-analysis model where a Box-Cox transformation is applied to the observed treatment effect estimates. The proposed model aims to normalise an overall distribution of observed treatment effect estimates, which is sum of the within-study sampling distributions and the random effects distribution. When sampling distributions are approximately normal, non-normality in the overall distribution will be mainly due to the random effects distribution, especially when the between-study variation is large relative to the within-study variation. The Box-Cox transformation addresses this flexibly according to the observed departure from normality. We use a Bayesian approach for estimating parameters in the proposed model, and suggest summarising the meta-analysis results by an overall median, an interquartile range and a prediction interval. The model can be applied for any kind of variables once the treatment effect estimate is defined from the variable.
resultsA simulation study suggested that when the overall distribution of treatment effect estimates are skewed, the overall mean and conventional I
conclusionsThe random effects meta-analysis with the Box-Cox transformation may be an important tool for examining robustness of traditional meta-analysis results against skewness on the observed treatment effect estimates. Further critical evaluation of the method is needed.
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.