ArticleResearch synthesis methods2019
A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta-analysis.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying behaviour change techniques in school-based childhood obesity prevention interventions: a secondary analysis of a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Does socioeconomic position moderate the associations between the content and delivery features of digital behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation and intervention effectiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Health psychology review · 2024Pooled it
- Multiple moderator meta-analysis using the R-package Meta-CART.Behavior research methods · 2020Pooled it
- Teachers' Implicit Attitudes Toward Students From Different Social Groups: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Pooled it
- Protocol: Machine learning for selecting moderators in meta-analysis: A systematic review of methods and their applications, and an evaluation using data on tutoring interventions.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Current evidence on the efficacy of mental health smartphone apps for symptoms of depression and anxiety. A meta-analysis of 176 randomized controlled trials.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024Article
- Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions.Statistical methods in medical research · 2022Article
- A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In meta-analytic studies, there are often multiple moderators available (eg, study characteristics). In such cases, traditional meta-analysis methods often lack sufficient power to investigate interaction effects between moderators, especially high-order interactions. To overcome this problem, meta-CART was proposed: an approach that applies classification and regression trees (CART) to identify interactions, and then subgroup meta-analysis to test the significance of moderator effects. The aim of this study is to improve meta-CART upon two aspects: 1) to integrate the two steps of the approach into one and 2) to consistently take into account the fixed-effect or random-effects assumption in both the the interaction identification and testing process. For fixed effect meta-CART, weights are applied, and subgroup analysis is adapted. For random effects meta-CART, a new algorithm has been developed. The performance of the improved meta-CART was investigated via an extensive simulation study on different types of moderator variables (ie, dichotomous, nominal, ordinal, and continuous variables). The simulation results revealed that the new method can achieve satisfactory performance (power greater than 0.80 and Type I error less than 0.05) if appropriate pruning rule is applied and the number of studies is large enough. The required minimum number of studies ranges from 40 to 120 depending on the complexity and strength of the interaction effects, the within-study sample size, the type of moderators, and the residual heterogeneity.
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.